The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[King]

Nobody in the GOP has discussed a reduction, either.  Perry + 60 GOP seats sounds like the perfect combo for more defense spending.

[courts]

Nobody in the GOP has discussed a reduction, either.  Perry + 60 GOP seats sounds like the perfect combo for more defense spending.

I think the implication was that we would be bankrupt, but then again it's JJ...

[Paul Kemp]

Ah yes. The GOP: The Party of Defense Cuts.

[tmthforu94]

Can he? Yes.

[J. J.]

Nobody in the GOP has discussed a reduction, either.  Perry + 60 GOP seats sounds like the perfect combo for more defense spending.

I would not be too sure about that.  The only two Republicans I've heard this year even hinting for more military spending were McCain and Graham.  There were Republicans (and yes, some Democrats) that complained about the cost of Libya (even though it was relatively inexpensive).*

The massive defense increase might exist in the minds of you, Opebo, and Paul Kemp, but not in anyone actually running.  It's east to create a straw man.

In all seriousness, I have yet to hear any of the R's talking about military increases; I have heard them say government spends too much.  If someone can find one of them talking about I'll be interested.

*Just for the record, I thought Obama handled Libya correctly.

[Lief 🗽]

Predicting that a Republican president and congress would cut military spending is equivalent to predicting that a Democratic president and congress would outlaw unions or withdraw from the UN.

[Boris]

Predicting that a Republican president and congress would cut military spending is equivalent to predicting that a Democratic president and congress would outlaw unions or withdraw from the UN.

No US President is going to [substantially] cut military spending, outlaw unions, or withdraw from the UN. That's not the way the world works.

[J. J.]

Predicting that a Republican president and congress would cut military spending is equivalent to predicting that a Democratic president and congress would outlaw unions or withdraw from the UN.

Lief, things change, like this:

1.  There are new priorities.  The candidates are saying "The federal government is too big."  The tea party movement is saying that.  Part of that government is the military.  Not increasing it, or decreasing it, fits with that philosophy.  I really do not recall any R presidential candidate saying "More money for defense."

2.  Obama has shown that bigger is not necessarily better.  Bin Laden was not taken down by a large force; he was in a county where we did not have a combat presence.  Abd al-Rahman was taken out by a drone strike.  Libya is being fought without any troops on the ground, relatively inexpensively.

3.  The R's agreed to the debt ceiling deal that, at least potentially, includes defense cuts, to the point Panetta (D) is complaining about them.

We might be seeing a change in how both parties look at military spending.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Posting directly into the Deluge, I see. How PoMo.

[J. J.]

Posting directly into the Deluge, I see. How PoMo.

Well, the topic might be more interesting in one of the categories.

The assumption that if the R's get in, there will be big defense expenditures, might not be accurate.  The thought that no president would at least limit further expenditures might not be either; potentially Obama has, with the support a Republican House. 

[King]

Libya (even though it was relatively inexpensive).*

Because those Republicans didn't really care about the cost, they cared about opposing the President.  The Republicans are not serious about cutting defense spending.  Any mention of it was quickly silenced in the debt ceiling negotiations.

[King]

There are new priorities.  The candidates are saying "The federal government is too big."  The tea party movement is saying that.  Part of that government is the military.  Not increasing it, or decreasing it, fits with that philosophy.  I really do not recall any R presidential candidate saying "More money for defense."

You assume they tell the truth.  How very foolish for a man as experienced as yourself.

[Paul Kemp]

Put the kabash on the Tea Party and become a responsible governing party again.

Remember the "angry white males" of the 1990's.. the militia groups... Pat Buchanan....  all of that seemed to go away in 2000.

Yeah...what a great 8 years of peace and prosperity we had during that period.

Meh....

Bush: 8 months of peace and six years of prosperity
Obama: No peace, no prosperity.

[J. J.]

There are new priorities.  The candidates are saying "The federal government is too big."  The tea party movement is saying that.  Part of that government is the military.  Not increasing it, or decreasing it, fits with that philosophy.  I really do not recall any R presidential candidate saying "More money for defense."

You assume they tell the truth.  How very foolish for a man as experienced as yourself.

You obviously missed this part:

3.  The R's agreed to the debt ceiling deal that, at least potentially, includes defense cuts, to the point Panetta (D) is complaining about them.

And this:

The assumption that if the R's get in, there will be big defense expenditures, might not be accurate.  The thought that no president would at least limit further expenditures might not be either; potentially Obama has, with the support a Republican House.

We may be seeing a different approach to military spending, no matter who gets elected. 

[King]

Put the kabash on the Tea Party and become a responsible governing party again.

Remember the "angry white males" of the 1990's.. the militia groups... Pat Buchanan....  all of that seemed to go away in 2000.

Yeah...what a great 8 years of peace and prosperity we had during that period.

Meh....

Bush: 8 months of peace and six years of prosperity
Obama: No peace, no prosperity.

When you sit a hole watching Hannity, it's possible to believe you live a world without any prosperity.

[Badger]

While it doesn't fit the description of this thread, pretty much any thread that jmfcst starts from his mobile turns into a deluge of absurdity.

that's because a certain pillsbury dough boy of ours has to go and wallow in my mobile threads as if they were his private mobile fecal pen.

Exhibit A

[they don't love you like i love you]

I suppose J. J. posting directly into here is like when Naso posts directly into the Goldmine, it's against standard protocol but appropriate in this case.

[J. J.]

When you sit a hole watching Hannity, it's possible to believe you live a world without any prosperity.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Stop spamming the thread with your angry rabbling, and post a quote that is absurdly stupid. 

Ron Paul, to me, is a non-contender. He isn't a conservative, will not win the nomination, and why he got in again is beyond me. His position on the issues is so far from even the more liberal Republican base that it's like a member of PETA applying for a job at a slaughterhouse. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It has become pretty clear that only a Paul or a Kucinich will fix our dangerous foreign policy mistakes here in the US of A.

Love it.

Especially because the 1st guy would implement the opposite policies of the 2nd one...

You make no sense.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It has become pretty clear that only a Paul or a Kucinich will fix our dangerous foreign policy mistakes here in the US of A.

Love it.

Especially because the 1st guy would implement the opposite policies of the 2nd one...

You make no sense.

     So, what differences would exist in their foreign policies?

[J. J.]

Stop spamming the thread with your angry rabbling, and post a quote that is absurdly stupid. 

Ron Paul, to me, is a non-contender. He isn't a conservative, will not win the nomination, and why he got in again is beyond me. His position on the issues is so far from even the more liberal Republican base that it's like a member of PETA applying for a job at a slaughterhouse. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Ah, I just did, King's post.

[Napoleon]

It has become pretty clear that only a Paul or a Kucinich will fix our dangerous foreign policy mistakes here in the US of A.

Love it.

Especially because the 1st guy would implement the opposite policies of the 2nd one...

You make no sense.

     So, what differences would exist in their foreign policies?

This is his method of personal attack. It doesn't matter to him whether or not he makes a fool out of himself in the process.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So you actually think Kucinich and Paul would implement the same policies ?

[Paul Kemp]

R: 389
D: 149

What hell this would be.

Two possibilities added and you can take out CA.

1.  Rubio is the VP candidate.

2.  Rubio appeals to voters of Mexican/Central American descent.

Even if the first occurs, the second may not.

Classless

I love the GOP.  Lying about WMDs is okay, but a scheduling conflict is where you have to draw the line.

A lie isn't a lie if you can't prove it was a lie. It's not like Bush said, "I told the American people blah blah blah....I lied....indeed they didn't have weapons."

Now Clinton on the other hand straightly admitted to a lie. Whether personal or not, that is a confirmed lie, not allegations of trickery into going to war.

I'm just so glad Obama is President...can you imagine how democrats would be slicing up President McCain at this point?