The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[J. J.]

What would happen if Perry were President w/ 60 GOP Senate Seats?

Probably a reduction in military spending.

I'm curious, but where did you ever hear Perry talk about the military?  I frankly have not heard the GOP talking about it.

[J. J.]

What would happen if Perry were President w/ 60 GOP Senate Seats?

Probably a reduction in military spending.

I'm curious, but where did you ever hear Perry talk about the military?  I frankly have not heard the GOP talking about it.

I think the 60 senate seats would say more about it than Perry.

Aside from Graham and McCain, I have not heard anyone even suggest higher military spending/activity.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[J. J.]

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

[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.

[J. J.]

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?

Still waiting for for Paul Kemp to explain the difference.

[J. J.]

First post:

Some good news, the White House lowered the expected debt growth.

It will get trampled under the bad news, but the debt ceiling deal helped.

Second series, a page later:

I see some here are enjoying the fact the economy is creating no jobs. Would I be out of line if I said the Republicans want the economy to do bad?

You'd be out of line to say that Republicans want the economy to improve, it's time to call them out on their destructive behavior.

The R's are just commenting on it.  The D's are doing it.

(Well, partly responsible.) 

Yeah, all the "commenting" they did with the debt ceiling has nothing to do with today's report.

Medium term, it will help, and it did produce a good result, as noted.

By whom? Your crystal ball?

[J. J.]

And Mark Critz did really well with working class whites a few months before the 2010 midterms.

Frankly I don't know what to say anymore. Despite Obama's unpopularity Democrats are clearly ahead of Republicans when it comes to the general congressional ballot, so all those doom-and-gloom predictions seem to me greatly exaggerated.
It's a very volatile period and whoever makes predictions risks to look like a fool a couple of months down the road.

The D's have not led on the generic ballot for more than two years.

[J. J.]

Another gem from the Master of Absurdity.

And Lief, thank you for helping drive Jewish voters away from Obama.

Considering this is the day after Turner winning NY-9, this take the award for the absurdity and cluelessness.

[J. J.]

Context:

At this point in 2008, wasn't everyone saying the same things about Romney and Clinton?

Weren't they?

[J. J.]

I'm one of the most humble people I know.

Something about calling oneself "most humble" just got me...

Americans really aren't very good at irony, are you now?

The proper American response is:  You've got a lot to be humble about.