Speakeasy forum: This Administration can't cut

how the cuts are being handled.

Just seems too much given our own situation, besides the drama play over the cuts.

Or for pennies on the dollar?

......that explains the logic behind going through with this deal, which was made with Egypt before the Mubarak government was overthrown. Being Fox, you have to scroll down a bit to get to this part:

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment about the pending delivery. But earlier this month, a spokesperson said the Obama administration seeks to "maintain a strategic partnership with Egypt that enhances the security and peace of the region."

But Anthony H. Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and who holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the administration is right to send the planes.

"If you were to suddenly end this partnership with Egypt -- if you were to make Egypt feel that somehow it were not trusted or second-best, what would the security implications be? It certainly would justify or encourage all of the extremist elements that are trying to push Egypt away from both the peace process and the security partnership with the U.S.," he told FoxNews.com.

He said that the cost of providing the weapons is worth it.

"We need to remember that Egypt isn't just important to Israel. It is critical to us, because it controls the Suez Canal. It has been a vital staging point for U.S. operations in the gulf."

Cordesman argued that the F-16 fighter jets are unlikely to be turned against us or our allies, as they are too complex to be used effectively without U.S. maintenance.

They're ALL against you, nobody loves you, you're all alone, why bother getting out of bed.

So you have no problem with Egypt having those planes and weapons. Good for you.

And Democrats aren't the FIRST to try it.

NOW you have a problem?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Even if others have done the same thing before and you agreed with them.

Oh, I'm paying attention all right.

You're biased.

We seem willing to release repeat offenders who do most the killing. We are willing to overlook that a 10-12% population group commits half the murders in this country because it's "not proportional" and that might result in "discrimination". Why not coverup the failure to reduce crime by passing a bunch of silly laws aimed at those who obey the laws anyway, then we can pretend we are doing a lot for the cause of law and justice, but "oh jailer, could you let another few out, we need to keep these crime stats up so we can keep fleecing the taxpayers to support our huge industry of courts, jails, police, bondsmen, lawyers, prosecutors, etc."

1 Timothy 1:9

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"

We need to concentrate on laws for the unrighteous instead of trying to take away the "inalienable" rights of the righteous.

However, let's not forget that most mass shootings are committed by people with no prior criminal history, IOW "law-abiding citizens."

Today they might cooperate....tomorrow they may not be so cooperative.

Tomorrow, when they are under stress...from affairs of the heart or work/school stress.

Nothing like emotions to get the trigger finger going. Who knows when emotions are going to rear their ugly head.

Ever listen to a police scanner? Any firearms in the residence is a popular question.

Put down the Guinness...you've had too many.

So we run towards where we think gun shots might possibly be heard in the future rather than where we hear them coming from now?

You ARE more likely to hear gunshots from a place that has a firearm, than a place without a firearm. NOW if you could run fast enough to travel into the future, your plan would work.

The question about firearms in residence is simply so the cops can know in advance whether it's likely there is someone armed in the residence they're about to enter. That's one good reason for registration -- the cops can get a list beforehand of what guns might be in a house before they go in.

I think the police might already have a good idea of the existence of a threat just by their experience and knowing the neighborhood they are in and its past history. I'm not against some sort of registration but I really can't see any reason for police to feel more or less at ease about the situation they're entering just knowing whether a piece of paper does or doesn't exist.

You forgot that most important word, didn't you?

not because he was a law-abiding citizen who owned it anyhow and would normally never even consider killing children with ANY weapon, Josh. So you have A nut case......and your answer is to condemn every law-abiding citizen for owning one? Do you see ANYTHING wrong with that picture? Of course not. Does it matter to you at all that he tried three days before the massacre to BUY a gun and was DENIED because he was a nut case? A nut case will FIND a way............