Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Oh and BTW this is the point I made that you're arguing with. So by factoring in Homeland Security and trying to stretch further than a decade, you're violating the terms of the debate in every conceivable way.
With or without DHS, your position falls on it's face.
a.) Even without DHS, we're talking $2.6T spent (not 1.4) in the last decade
and like I said
b.) a large part of the current deficit is spending (direct and indirect) on those wars.
"violating the terms of debate huh" why don't you try engaging honestly and dropping all the bull**** red herrings, strawmen and other distractions?
(for the record, I don't give a flying **** about tone, I care about content)