Obama, Hitler Billboard "Not Disrespectful" Tea Party Leader Says

[Rey C.]

No what we need is to stick our proverbial heads in the sand, pretend there's no bad guys out there or criminal regimes, become isolationist, and bring back limp dick Carter's defense spending which will turn our military into a force that the Congo could beat. Yeah tha'll work just fine fellas.



There are some posters who were clearly not of age in the 1980s.

Well, I was of age in the 1980's and I still don't accept that if we don't have military spending that now accounts for 41%+ of the world's total that we would then have an ineffective military that could be beaten by the Congo.

BTW, as of 2008 the U.S. was at 41.5% of total global military spending (according to the CIA World Factbook), while Communist China stood at 5.8% and the Russians at 4%. So we account for almost half of the military spending in the entire world. All being paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. We protect every place from Korea to Japan to Germany. Our roads and bridges here are falling apart. But because we're Goodtime Charlie around the world, other countries take their money and build new bridges, schools and whatever else they want to do with all that SPARE CASH that we've freed up for them! Do you seriously think that by shaving a few percentage points off of that global total that the Russians and the Chinese... and the Congolese rofl would be staging their forces and preparing to invade the U.S.?

You don't really believe that hyperbolic statement that you made, do you?

 

[Trident1]

Well, I was of age in the 1980's and I still don't accept that if we don't have military spending that now accounts for 41%+ of the world's total that we would then have an ineffective military that could be beaten by the Congo.

BTW, as of 2008 the U.S. was at 41.5% of total global military spending (according to the CIA World Factbook), while Communist China stood at 5.8% and the Russians at 4%. So we account for almost half of the military spending in the entire world. All being paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. We protect every place from Korea to Japan to Germany. Our roads and bridges here are falling apart. But because we're Goodtime Charlie around the world, other countries take their money and build new bridges, schools and whatever else they want to do with all that SPARE CASH that we've freed up for them! Do you seriously think that by shaving a few percentage points off of that global total that the Russians and the Chinese... and the Congolese rofl would be staging their forces and preparing to invade the U.S.?

You don't really believe that hyperbolic statement that you made, do you?

Yes I do believe in my statement.

Whether you like it or not we're gonna be "Goodtime Charlie" for a very very long time. Being isolationist is a thing of the past.
We spend a lot on defense and R/D because we are a super power, smaller and leaner than what we were in the 1980s but nevertheless a great power.
China spends a boatload of cash on defense gradually expanding their littoral Navy, as well as their AF and ground forces.
Russia will increase spending in the coming years after the virtual collapse of their military in the 1990s.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well, I was of age in the 1980's and I still don't accept that if we don't have military spending that now accounts for 41%+ of the world's total that we would then have an ineffective military that could be beaten by the Congo.

BTW, as of 2008 the U.S. was at 41.5% of total global military spending (according to the CIA World Factbook), while Communist China stood at 5.8% and the Russians at 4%. So we account for almost half of the military spending in the entire world. All being paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. We protect every place from Korea to Japan to Germany. Our roads and bridges here are falling apart. But because we're Goodtime Charlie around the world, other countries take their money and build new bridges, schools and whatever else they want to do with all that SPARE CASH that we've freed up for them! Do you seriously think that by shaving a few percentage points off of that global total that the Russians and the Chinese... and the Congolese rofl would be staging their forces and preparing to invade the U.S.?

You don't really believe that hyperbolic statement that you made, do you?

Rey...everyone knows the jig is up on that smoke screen. Everyone knows the Reagan won the Cold War gibberish is the GOPer con for justifying historic amounts of money spent (later learned to have been waste) under Reagan.

At first the spin was it was Demos in congress who spent all the money. That spin was debunked when the types of things that were getting the lion's share were GOPer interests and not dime could be spent without Ronny's sig for all of those $300 military toilet seats. Then it became necessary spending because Ron defeated the commies with it.

Just BS revisionism so GOPers can make sense of their god Reagan breaking the bank while president.

But I'm sure some of the shills here can justify the corporate welfare redistributed to pay for $300 hammers and toilet seats.

Where does the shilling end??:rofl:

Also, anyone with a shred of sense knew the Russians were collapsing in on themselves whether we spent what Ron spent or not.

 

[Trident1]

But I'm sure some of the shills here can justify the corporate welfare redistributed to pay for $300 hammers and toilet seats.

Where does the shilling end??:rofl:

That's called bureaucracy and red tape which gets worse when you have big gov't...................something the Democrats love.

 

[Hot Mega]

That's called bureaucracy and red tape which gets worse when you have bad gov't...................something both sides love when it's their "policies"

Whether it was Ron's waste "defeating" the commies or GWB's waste drawing Al Kyda to a place they weren't to 'defeat' them...it all spells the same...'Mega fixing it for ya in your post.:thumbsup:

 

[Rey C.]

Yes I do believe in my statement.

Whether you like it or not we're gonna be "Goodtime Charlie" for a very very long time. Being isolationist is a thing of the past.
We spend a lot on defense and R/D because we are a super power, smaller and leaner than what we were in the 1980s but nevertheless a great power.
China spends a boatload of cash on defense gradually expanding their littoral Navy, as well as their AF and ground forces.
Russia will increase spending in the coming years after the virtual collapse of their military in the 1990s.

I'm sorry to hear that you actually believe that. So the first nickel of defense spending that is cut instantly means that Congo could win a war against us and would make us "isolationists", eh? I'm not trying to offend you, but I can only say that that is a very ridiculous assertion. But that is the mindset of many, who have confused the actual mission of the government, as the Constituion spells it out, with what they see as our destiny to spread the word of God and democracy throughout the world... whether it bankrupts us or not. It's as if some of you folks don't understand that this house of cards is being held up by debt. And who is one of our chief financiers? Is it a supposed friend or a potential (and past) enemy?

Anyway, here is a snippet of a chart with figures from the CIA World Factbook. Take from it what you will. If it makes you happy, then God bless you. If it makes you sad, that's too bad. Just pray that the Chinese and others will keep buying U.S. Treasuries so we can keep "protecting the world."

Country by GDP Rank ($ Amt.) / Military Spending $ Amt / % of Global Milit. Spending

#1 United States ($14.430 Trillion) / $607 Billion / 41.5%
#2 Japan ($5.108 Trillion) / 46.3 Billion / 3.2%
#3 People's Republic of China ($4.814 Trillion) / $84.9 Billion / 5.8%
#4 Germany ($3.273 Trillion) / $46.8 Billion / 3.2%
#5 France ($2.666 Trillion) / $65.7 Billion / 4.5%
#6 United Kingdom ($2.198 Trillion) / $65.3 Billion / 4.5%
#7 Italy ($2.090 Trillion) / $40.6 Billion / 2.8%
#8 Brazil ($1.499 Trillion) / $23.3 Billion / 1.6%
#9 Spain ($1.466 Trillion) / $19.2 Billion / 1.3%
#10 Canada ($1.335 Trillion) / $19.3 Billion / 1.3%
#11 Russia ($1.232 Trillion) / $58.6 Billion / 4.0%

*Data from 2009 CIA World Factbook

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm sorry to hear that you actually believe that. So the first nickel of defense spending that is cut instantly means that Congo could win a war against us and would make us "isolationists", eh? I'm not trying to offend you, but I can only say that that is a very ridiculous assertion. But that is the mindset of many, who have confused the actual mission of the government, as the Constituion spells it out, with what they see as our destiny to spread the word of God and democracy throughout the world... whether it bankrupts us or not. It's as if some of you folks don't understand that this house of cards is being held up by debt. And who is one of our chief financiers? Is it a supposed friend or a potential (and past) enemy?

Anyway, here is a snippet of a chart with figures from the CIA World Factbook. Take from it what you will. If it makes you happy, then God bless you. If it makes you sad, that's too bad. Just pray that the Chinese and others will keep buying U.S. Treasuries so we can keep "protecting the world."

Q."How did Ronald Reagan "win" the Cold War?"

(GOPer) A. He outspent the Soviets then told them to tear down the Berlin wall and they gave up.

I suppose that's reasonable. The Russians simply gave up because the US was wasting money on $3000 coffee makers and $600 toilet seats. So upon seeing Reagan towing his 100 lb. pair of balls in a wheelbarrow to a podium in Berlin...tore down the Berlin wall because he said so.

What really happened is Frank Carlucci and his cronies bilked the US taxpayer for hundreds of billions of dollars in the biggest scam this country has ever witnessed. Only rivaled by the scam his protege Rumsfeld perpetrated with the Iraq War's contracts, Halliburton and their subs.

 

[Rey C.]

Q."How did Ronald Reagan "win" the Cold War?"

(GOPer) A. He outspent the Soviets then told them to tear down the Berlin wall and they gave up.

I suppose that's reasonable. The Russians simply gave up because the US was wasting money on $3000 coffee makers and $600 toilet seats. So upon seeing Reagan towing his 100 lb. pair of balls in a wheelbarrow to a podium in Berlin...tore down the Berlin wall because he said so.

What really happened is Frank Carlucci and his cronies bilked the US taxpayer for hundreds of billions of dollars in the biggest scam this country has ever witnessed. Only rivaled by the scam his protege Rumsfeld perpetrated with the Iraq War's contracts, Halliburton and their subs.

Yeah, the sad thing is (some) people are willing to accept the Cliff Notes version of "How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War". What's even sadder is those same people now ignore the FACT that the Soviet economic model was indeed collapsing, as you said. No matter what, it was not sustainable. And further, our own economy is now saddled with too much debt... that has to be financed by some of the very same coutries that we consider enemies (or at least not friendly to us). Just as we did the Soviets, they seem quite content to let us spend ourselves into oblivion.

Throughout recorded history, there has NEVER been a major nation that was able to continue growing or expanding once it began ignoring domestic infrastructure. If anyone can find one, please post it. But that seems to be the path this nation is on.

Let me ask something else. As much as some like to talk about the government overstepping its bounds, what's the basis for this belief that it is the duty of the United State to prop up every other country in the world with our military? Can someone show me that in the Constitution??? If a country won't spend on its military, no worries... the U.S. taxpayer will pay for U.S. troops to protect them. 41.5% of the global total. Add to that, if you seek to you cut anything (even the waste) from the military budget, all of a sudden you hear Chicken Little cries of "Osama and the nation of Congo will be able to defeat us with ease." Amazing. Truly amazing...

Liberals are said to be (by so called "conservatives) people who believe fantasies and like to spend other people's money to support those fantasies. It certainly looks to me like a good many of these (faux) conservatives are actually "liberals". Almost like a guy that keeps time with a "shemale"... but doesn't realize that he is a homosexual. :dunno:

 

[neighborboy]

Really? Ok, I'm game... prove any or all of my statements demonstrably false.

Where has he denounced those opposed to him as enemies? I'd be curious to see what quotes you think put him anywhere near the same ballpark as a dictatorship on that front, especially given Bush's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" talk.

Patiently awaiting your response to the "Obama labels his opponents enemies just like a dictator" nonsense, CS

 

[fred20]

its ok when the daily show and kolbert report do this everyday, kolbert did everything possible to make mccain look evil for christ sakes you hypocrits.

it goes both ways, the difference is liberals are allowed to do it on mainstream media. I know, here comes the typical liberal retort...FOX news, great one media outlet to compare against a few hundred.

 

[bustybbwlover]

its ok when the daily show and kolbert report do this everyday, kolbert did everything possible to make mccain look evil for christ sakes you hypocrits.

colbert and the daily show aren't the news they're both satires/humorous takes on the news now if you want to take them as real news that's your choice...it's like trying to get your news from the monologues of jay leno or david letterman at the beginning of each of their shows it's about the humor not the news story

 

[Facetious]

The Russians simply gave up because the US was wasting money on $3000 coffee makers and $600 toilet seats.

Nonsense!:1orglaugh The Russians "gave up'' because of : "B1 Bob" (Doornan)

 

[Hot Mega]

its ok when the daily show and kolbert report do this everyday, kolbert did everything possible to make mccain look evil for christ sakes you hypocrits.

it goes both ways, the difference is liberals are allowed to do it on mainstream media. I know, here comes the typical liberal retort...FOX news, great one media outlet to compare against a few hundred.

If you want to compare Fox "News" Channel to Comedy Central...well uh, be my guest. You are not far off.:hatsoff: (I'm tempted to rep you for it.):o

But to your point....Fox ran hours and hours of a ginned up "report" on Obama's so called terrorist ties (of which there are absolutely none). Where was the wall to wall coverage of rehashing McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 or his involvement in getting his wife off the hook for crimes she committed? I mean, it was covered as they had to but did they have a nightly special on it??

Fox challenged Obama's patriotism night in and night out. Where was their coverage of Palin's association to an anti-American secessionist group in AK? Hell, even the mainstream media laid off of it even when there was more than enough reason to dig into it and use it to smear her..if they were allegedly in the pocket of Obama.

fred...:wave2:

 

[pete rose]

I'm pretty sure people are aware of his character.

 

[Hot Mega]

Nonsense!:1orglaugh The Russians "gave up'' because of : "B1 Bob" (Doornan)

Talk about a blast from the past. I wonder what insane asylum that kook is hold up in now.

You think Mel Gibby was prone to the occasional homophobic, anti-semitic, racist rant...there was none better at it than ol' "B1 Bob"...

 

[cooldude486]

I want to remind those who lionize Reagan that he was hardly the savior of America slanted Republican history paints. In fact, he was the "grandfather" of George W. Bush, and it was Reagan's policies -- fully rolled out during eight years of Republican control-- that nearly destroyed our country politically, socially and economically under W.

Whether or not you agree with Obama policies, he has shown little left-wing tendencies and has actually governed somewhat right-of-center, which has had somewhat deleterious effects on the program of change he promised. As I have said, the right-wing moved the center, so these policies seem more liberal than they actually are.

 

[Trident1]

Meh you liberals are just pissed the Cold War ended under a Republican admin. Too bad.

Some of you really need to learn about Geopolitics and history. The simplistic view some have here is pretty pathetic.

 

[pete rose]

I'm sure they weren't mad. Who gets mad at ending the cold war?

Some of you really need to learn about Geopolitics and history. The simplistic view some have here is pretty pathetic.

Who left the iron on?

 

[Hot Mega]

Meh you liberals are just pissed the Cold War ended under a Republican admin. Too bad.

Some of you really need to learn about Geopolitics and history. The simplistic view some have here is pretty pathetic.

:1orglaugh That is the point....the Cold War simply ended under Reagan...he did no more to effect it ending than anyone else.

Get it through your head...the Russian model was collapsing in on itself ..whether the president was named Reagan, Carter or Hart.:dunno:

Trying to justify the scams that took place in Reagan's DOD which bilked taxpayers unlike ever before or since by claiming it is what won the Cold War is laughable to anyone with sense.

 

[CunningStunts]

HM, you and many of your leftist friend forget that there are true "conservatives" in America that are not friends of the GOP as a party. Both parties regularly attack our freedoms, but right now I'd have to say the largest threat is from the left, who want to create government programs, panels, czars, and commissions to run everything for everybody, saving us from ourselves, and mostly by taking something earned from those who earn, and give it to those who have not earned and do not deserve... all in the name of "justice" and "equity." It's bullshit. When you give the government that kind of power, it is only a matter of time.

Some of us are tired of both parties fighting over who will make our decisions for us. We want to make our OWN choices, as we are guaranteed by the Constitution. We choose not pseudo safety promised by some failed socialistic government ideals, but freedom... and the trials, tests, and responsibilities that come with it.