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

[Trident1]

Saddam believed he could survive US attacks long enough to eventually return to power in the aftermath of a failed US invasion.

Who penned that theory?

Again, the malarkey you are willing to buy is grossly at odds with reality IMO.

You are theorizing according to spin it was Reagans "aggressive defense budget" based solely on spin versus the practical reality that our spending had virtually no effect on the USSR's demise.

He felt he could survive which kind of "attacks". Air strikes or an invasion by land.

He felt he could survive the air strikes. A ground invasion was different especially after the 1991 war which proved how weak his armed forces truly were.


I do not base anything on "spin", as I have a mind of my own.

Our spending sped up the demise of the Soviet Union. You simply do not want to see that truth because you despise Reagan.
Do you honestly believe the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would've collapsed on the dates in which they did had Carter and Mondale been President during the 80s? Those two morons would've extended the SU and WP lifespan by at least 3-5 years.


Face it, during the Cold War it took a Republican admin. to make headway against the Soviets.

 

[Hot Mega]

He felt he could survive which kind of "attacks". Air strikes or an invasion by land.

He felt he could survive the air strikes. A ground invasion was different especially after the 1991 war which proved how weak his armed forces truly were.


I do not base anything on "spin", as I have a mind of my own.

Our spending sped up the demise of the Soviet Union. You simply do not want to see that truth because you despise Reagan.
Do you honestly believe the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would've collapsed on the dates in which they did had Carter and Mondale been President during the 80s? Those two morons would've extended the SU and WP lifespan by at least 3-5 years.


Face it, during the Cold War it took a Republican admin. to make headway against the Soviets.

I am fairly indifferent about Reagan the man...I just know his policies had no effect on the demise of the Soviet economic model. To think Reagan's DOD spending drove the Soviets to collapse is GOPer fantasy and amounts to nothing more than GOPer revisionism IMO.

Until you provide clear, objective evidence of anything else....the reality of the US taxpayer being bilked is the only reality of the circumstance.:wave2:

 

[YMIHERE]

Our spending sped up the demise of the Soviet Union. You simply do not want to see that truth because you despise Reagan.
Do you honestly believe the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would've collapsed on the dates in which they did had Carter and Mondale been President during the 80s? Those two morons would've extended the SU and WP lifespan by at least 3-5 years.


Face it, during the Cold War it took a Republican admin. to make headway against the Soviets.

You are forgetting that this was a long war. For almost 45 years the USA under Democratic and Republican presidents spend tons of money on defense. You seem to think the cold war started and ended with Reagan. Check your history about how the entire political establishment fought the cold war and as a result the USSR was on the ropes before 1980. And BTW, Reagan wasn't even the president in 1989 when the cold war ended.

 

[Trident1]

You are forgetting that this was a long war. For almost 45 years the USA under Democratic and Republican presidents spend tons of money on defense. You seem to think the cold war started and ended with Reagan. Check your history about how the entire political establishment fought the cold war and as a result the USSR was on the ropes before 1980. And BTW, Reagan wasn't even the president in 1989 when the cold war ended.

Of course I realize the Cold War didn't begin and end with Reagan. The Soviet System wasn't on the ropes before 1980 and in fact it's citizens enjoyed a rather stable standard of living in 1976. That's a big difference from the standard in 1986.


Yes, I know Reagan wasn't Pres. in 1989. Bush SR. was.


Come on peeps............

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

You are forgetting that this was a long war. For almost 45 years the USA under Democratic and Republican presidents spend tons of money on defense. You seem to think the cold war started and ended with Reagan. Check your history about how the entire political establishment fought the cold war and as a result the USSR was on the ropes before 1980. And BTW, Reagan wasn't even the president in 1989 when the cold war ended.

You must be a German pornstar's mouth, because you're full of shit. :tongue:

The USSR was not on the ropes before 1980. Was it in a good position agains the States? No. But was it "on the ropes"? Hardly.

 

[Trident1]

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1362589


Russia is to increase defense spending. Guess we aren't the only ones doing so. Someone here was trying to make that assertion.

 

[Hot Mega]

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1362589


Russia is to increase defense spending. Guess we aren't the only ones doing so. Someone here was trying to make that assertion.

1.) So what...they would need to spend a thousand times a much to match our spending.

2.) How is this relevant to their spending in the '80s which allegedly bankrupted them?

 

[Trident1]

1.) So what...they would need to spend a thousand times a much to match our spending.

2.) How is this relevant to their spending in the '80s which allegedly bankrupted them?

1. Someone on this thread was making an assertion that currently other countries, such as Russia, only spend a paltry amount on defense. I was providing an article disproving that notion.

2. No relevance.

 

[Hot Mega]

1. Someone on this thread was making an assertion that currently other countries, such as Russia, only spend a paltry amount on defense. I was providing an article disproving that notion.

You only provided evidence they have doubled their spending. What is the evidence that spending has risen to or above the level of being "paltry"?

 

[Rey C.]

When a political regime is forcing hard working and law abiding people to pay healthcare and social security for non willing to work and lazy ass parasites, it is not a democracy, it is more or less socialism.

Uh Georges, socialism is an economic system. Democracy is a governmental system. Whether a country relies on socialism or laissez-faire capitalism as an economic system has nothing to do with its governmental system.

And anyway, the United States is actually better defined as a constitutional republic, not a (pure) democracy. People tend to mix and match the two but they are not one and the same.

 

[Rey C.]

1. Someone on this thread was making an assertion that currently other countries, such as Russia, only spend a paltry amount on defense. I was providing an article disproving that notion.

You haven't disproved anything with this article. If you read the article that you posted, you would see that Russia has plans to increase its military budget over ten years time (2011-2020). The planned increase will take their military budget to 20 trillion rubles. Trident1, 20 trillion rubles = $656.32 billion. So over ten years the Ruskies plan to spend slightly more than we spent in ONE year. And their plan is just that: a plan. What they can and can't do depends on the price of oil and their share of those revenues. One year Russia is bathing in money. And the next year, Russian women are selling their bodies on street corners to buy bread and soap.

The data that I posted was pretty straightforward and pretty self-explanatory: the United States spends more on global military expenditures than the next 14 nations combined. and at 41.5%, it is quite close to half of the total money spent globally on military expenditures. That's factual data provided by the CIA. I'm not sure how you're going to (successfully) disprove that.

I believe in a strong military... I always have. But unlike some of you fellows, I'm not prone to hyperbole and Chicken Little fears that a sensible international downsizing and cutting WASTE would mean that the the U.S. Army could be beaten by the Congolese military. I believe that was you who said that, yes? And just to make sure that you weren't joking, I actually asked you if you were serious... and you said that you were. I gave you an out. Dude, why didn't you take it???

It's OK though. The military is your sacred cow. I understand. And you're willing to do and say anything to protect that sacred cow. Really, it's OK. It's just what people do. Just don't try to pass yourself off as a "fiscal conservative"... because I don't think that you are (just going by what you've posted here). You obviously believe in throwing money at problems, whether real or imagined. If you can't throw money at it, you then claim that complete and total failure will be the result if even one dime is not given to Sacred Bessy. And your admission that you're more than happy to waste money (as long as it's for your sacred cow) means you can't wear that "fiscal conservative" badge.

You can still be a "social conservative" though! Get off this porn site, get those pics of them nekkid wimens off your computer, stop drinking, start going to a good, evangelical church, listen to the words of Brother Pat Robertson and Pastor Will E Worm and maybe we can get you a "social conservative" badge. You can even back slide every now & again and keep that badge!

 

[jjo_is4]

^^ That's a great post. Can you imagine how much the quality of life of the average American could improve if your previous "Governments" spent more time making friends than getting involved in situations that facilitate the need to spend such incredible sums of money on your military. :2 cents:

 

[cooldude486]

What???? The man who brought us into a global war? The man who prolonged a Depression by nearly a decade? If you really believe in that New Deal mythology then I imagine you're willing to believe just about anything.

Nearly everything about FDR and his administrations is white washed and mythologized. I cannot believe what I just read.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

I'm assuming you were referring to antebellum Roosevelt. Or where you referring to any of his other policies?

FDR, savior of the United States of America. Gee whiz, as they said in his day.

Had FDR been more aggressive with spending to spur recovery the Depression would not have been prolonged -- he gave in to the right of his party (sound familiar?) -- but he did avert the catastrophe that was not only looming but had sucked the country into its vortex. Without FDR, there would have been revolution with either a fascist (most likely) or communist (possible but less likely) government in place. The Constitution would not hold with 25% of the country unemployed and with few social programs people actually starving to death in the US. FDR averted that violent revolution and saved our nation. That he did so while concommitantly defeating Nazi Germany & the Empire of Japan in only four years is testament to his leadership.

The new right-wing attacks on FDR are simply justifications for their own flawed policies grounded in flawed ideology. We saw some of that ideology turn into policy under W with nearly catastrophic results, as well. This same brand of right-wingers who attack FDR also criticize Lincoln for standing in the way of states rights. They simply do not or cannot understand the realities of history and how disasterous their programs would be for the country if every fully implemented.

The right-wing has been on the wrong side of everything that represents American success in the 20th century. They have oppossed Pure Food & Drug laws,child labor laws, women's rights, civil rights, social security, aid to England & rebuilding the Navy in the '30's, the Marshall Plan -- you name it.

If it was up to the right-wing Freeones would be illegal.

 

[fred20]

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

A) liberals do take these shows as news
B) the point of it is mainstream vs radical

both of these shows are as "mainstream" as anything can get, they are both aired 3 or more times a day, thats pretty damn mainstream, they are also aired on a channel owned by the largest TV conglomerate in the world.

The daily show may be a comedy source that is pretty far left, but the colbert report is strictly brainwashing rhetoric for the standard liberal (and isnt remotely funny to begin with). Both of which were 100% compagning for obama, as well as 99% of the "actual" news, there really isnt any real news anymore, they are more just sources to get their opinion shoved down your throat.

 

[fred20]

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:

all this rebuttle to fox news was done on every single other "news" station, so there was 1 station not on obamas cock, oh no.

and dont fool yourself, the only people that watch fox news are radical rights and liberals trying to scrutinize it, hence you knowing what it was reporting

 

[jjo_is4]

all this rebuttle to fox news was done on every single other "news" station, so there was 1 station not on obamas cock, oh no.

and dont fool yourself, the only people that watch fox news are radical rights and liberals trying to scrutinize it, hence you knowing what it was reporting

3 posts since Feb 2006? :shy: Isn't Obama amazing?

 

[Hot Mega]

all this rebuttle to fox news was done on every single other "news" station, so there was 1 station not on obamas cock, oh no.

and dont fool yourself, the only people that watch fox news are radical rights and liberals trying to scrutinize it, hence you knowing what it was reporting

I think I will wait til I have a few drinks to reply on point to this. That's probably the only way it will make sense.

 

[Hot Mega]

Of course I realize the Cold War didn't begin and end with Reagan.

No shit. Isn't that what everyone here has been telling you? And here I thought you could't make progress with incorrigible GOPers?:o

The Soviet System wasn't on the ropes before 1980 and in fact it's citizens enjoyed a rather stable standard of living in 1976. That's a big difference from the standard in 1986.

Interestingly coincidental with the Soviet/Afghan War ('79-'89)...Isn't it infinitely more reasonable that lead to their demise than Reagan's DOD raiding the taxpayers and enriching their cronies.

Reagan's administration was probably the most corrupt in US history.

Everyone was so busy distracted by partying they didn't realize nor care. That is what GWB hoped for...people would be so busy partying off their easily obtain 2nd and 3rd mortgages (and other free loans) no one would care that he was borrowing to enrich his cronies.

 

[Trident1]

No shit. Isn't that what everyone here has been telling you? And here I thought you could't make progress with incorrigible GOPers?:o

Interestingly coincidental with the Soviet/Afghan War ('79-'89)...Isn't it infinitely more reasonable that lead to their demise than Reagan's DOD raiding the taxpayers and enriching their cronies.

Reagan's administration was probably the most corrupt in US history.

.

Yeah the Afghan war was fought mostly under Reagan 2 terms. It had just begun under Carter who was wrapped up in the Iran hostage fiasco.


What has everyone been trying to tell me Mega? Stuff I already know.


You simply won't admit that the Soviet system under Reagan took an enormous beating.

I'm a centrist not a GOPer or a Democrat. However, your bias is clearly showing. I'm only interested in what really happened because I lived through it. That's why I'm so interested in the Cold War.



Next................

 

[Hot Mega]

Yeah the Afghan war was fought mostly under Reagan 2 terms. It had just begun under Carter who was wrapped up in the Iran hostage fiasco.


What has everyone been trying to tell me Mega? Stuff I already know.


You simply won't admit that the Soviet system under Reagan took an enormous beating.

I'm a centrist not a GOPer or a Democrat. However, your bias is clearly showing. I'm only interested in what really happened because I lived through it. That's why I'm so interested in the Cold War.



Next................

We know it took a beating...The question is from whom?

I thought you were coming around to reality but seems the patient is slipping.:crying: