PDA

View Full Version : Why are Republicans seemingly so pro Coummnist Russia and anti America?!



Imac7065
03-06-2014, 12:16 AM
Do these guys (Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and others) even realize that they are literally saying that the ex KGB Communist "president" of Russia is somehow more admirable than the President of the United States?

Could you ever imagine an American opposition party less than a week into a crisis calling the president of the United States "feckless", "naive", "weak", and whatever else they are saying? Do that not get that merely saying this asinine things is emboldening what may become a war time enemy?! If these words were spoken during war time, they could seriously be taken as treason, couldn't they?!


And before you all go crazy with "Dems went after Bush on Iraq".... no, no they didn't. The Democratic party (at its own fault) got in line in 2003 and voted to invade Iraq. It wasn't until a year later when it was discover the propaganda for the war was a lie that the opposition started questioning the president (IE Kerry saying he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it)...


"Politics end at the waters edge"...unless you are Barack Obama and the Republican party believes they can gain brownie points with their radical base.

Wickabee
03-06-2014, 12:28 AM
Got a quote or a link or...anything..?

Imac7065
03-06-2014, 12:30 AM
Got a quote or a link or...anything..?

they aren't showing the news up there? Do you get CNN? Lindsay Graham and John McCain have gone seemingly nuts and other republicans have said things like "Putin is playing Chess and we're playing marbles"... its been all over tv.. please dont make me chase quotes when im half asleep man lol

Wickabee
03-06-2014, 12:32 AM
they aren't showing the news up there? Do you get CNN? Lindsay Graham and John McCain have gone seemingly nuts and other republicans have sex things like "Putin is playing Chess and we're playing marbles"... its been all over tv.. please dont make me chase quotes when im half asleep man lol

I've been focused on the NHL trade deadline today. Haven't been paying much attention to news. I used to get CNN et al, but they keep telling me what to think, so I rarely bother with TV news anymore. Please don't make me flip channels when I'm half asleep.

Imac7065
03-06-2014, 12:35 AM
here.. i split the difference lol...

https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+attack+obama+on+russia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

Wickabee
03-06-2014, 01:00 AM
Fully acceptable. Kind of a D move, but acceptable.

Wickabee
03-06-2014, 01:04 AM
Okay, the fact that they would be saying the exact same words no matter what Obama did, or did not do, makes it all go in one ear and out the other. There's nothing new here. They just call him and idiot and give vague examples of what they might do.

I don't think it's worth the vitriol that began this thread, I think this is a Biden/Palin issue: Just more stupid noise.

texansrangerfan73
03-06-2014, 01:18 AM
I'm sure the U.S. is coming to the rescue of yet another 3rd World country. Still they want to cut our Military forces & leave some of the best Americans (Servicemen) looking for work & penny less, go figure. Hold on Ukraine, we're coming!!

Wickabee
03-06-2014, 01:28 AM
Who is "they"?

texansrangerfan73
03-06-2014, 01:38 AM
Who is "they"?

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

JustAlex
03-06-2014, 01:50 AM
I'm sure the U.S. is coming to the rescue of yet another 3rd World country. Still they want to cut our Military forces & leave some of the best Americans (Servicemen) looking for work & penny less, go figure. Hold on Ukraine, we're coming!!
How about we don't go anywhere period.

How about we bring all our good young men and women and home tell the world we're done being the freaking police.

How about we cut the military budget by at LEAST half and use that money to fix the seemingly endless problems we have here at home.

How about we actually act like adults and do something right instead of the big tough guy at the playground who thinks it's his job to make sure the other kids all play nicely but in reality all he does is make things a million times worse.


I'll never agree with this country's military as long as it continues to want to be the big tough guy.

They think this is leadership and strength, when in reality it shows petulance and it alienates everyone on all sides.

Every empire that has ever existed has fallen, I wouldn't call the U.S an empire or anything close to that, but it's military and nonsensical decisions about how to use said military will one day be it's downfall if they continue down this path.

I think one day history will look back at the U.S and say "what might have been.....the first attempt at a modern superpower fails due to the same mistakes of the past".

texansrangerfan73
03-06-2014, 02:01 AM
How about we don't go anywhere period.

How about we bring all our good young men and women home tell the world we're done being the freaking police.


I would love to see that & support that 100%

Imac7065
03-06-2014, 12:42 PM
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

I'm just curious.. did you get that defensive about this when Donald Rumsfeld wanted to drastically cut man power in the US military in the mid 2000's? You know right in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan? "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you want" -Donald Rumsfeld.


Cutting stuff like f 22's that cost over 20 million dollars each and are never used, or tank brigades that go from the factory floor to a garage to collect dust, or any other wasteful military industrial complex bs that exists... I'm all for that. If we cut our military by 50% we would still spend more than the next 10 countries combined.... chew on that for a minute.

sanfran22
03-06-2014, 01:04 PM
Do these guys (Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and others) even realize that they are literally saying that the ex KGB Communist "president" of Russia is somehow more admirable than the President of the United States?

Could you ever imagine an American opposition party less than a week into a crisis calling the president of the United States "feckless", "naive", "weak", and whatever else they are saying? Do that not get that merely saying this asinine things is emboldening what may become a war time enemy?! If these words were spoken during war time, they could seriously be taken as treason, couldn't they?!


And before you all go crazy with "Dems went after Bush on Iraq".... no, no they didn't. The Democratic party (at its own fault) got in line in 2003 and voted to invade Iraq. It wasn't until a year later when it was discover the propaganda for the war was a lie that the opposition started questioning the president (IE Kerry saying he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it)...


"Politics end at the waters edge"...unless you are Barack Obama and the Republican party believes they can gain brownie points with their radical base.


Funny, I don't see where anyone is pro Russia. I also don't see anyone "admiring" Putin. I do see you twisting it into your own narrative. I see where they take issue to the response, or lack there of, by Obama. His sandwich must be more important.

Good Ole Jim
03-06-2014, 01:05 PM
I think around a 25% cut is more of a realistic expectation. Our military spends loads of cash on special projects that don't go anywhere, I think we can cut that out.

Usually I put in a bunch of research before responding to posts, but this is kind of spur of the moment, so forgive me for the rambling.

I'll say this, I have no problem with having a large military, it provides loads of jobs to not just the military, but military-contracted manufacturers that get all of their product from the United States. Large cuts would no doubt have huge consequences on these markets.

If we were to go the 50% route, I'd like to see 25% of that cut put into a slush fund for Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. The President would then be able to administer where that money goes, with a panel of people that represent that fund advising the President. The money could also be outsourced to a different department if not used by the end of a fiscal year. The reason for such a fund is that we can still maintain proper defenses in the homeland and oversees by directing money where it's needed, not by giving a kid $20 so he can spend it all at the candy store.

Even by cutting the budget by a more realistic 25% can ensure success in areas where we need it most.

sanfran22
03-06-2014, 01:06 PM
I'm just curious.. did you get that defensive about this when Donald Rumsfeld wanted to drastically cut man power in the US military in the mid 2000's? You know right in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan? "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you want" -Donald Rumsfeld.


Cutting stuff like f 22's that cost over 20 million dollars each and are never used, or tank brigades that go from the factory floor to a garage to collect dust, or any other wasteful military industrial complex bs that exists... I'm all for that. If we cut our military by 50% we would still spend more than the next 10 countries combined.... chew on that for a minute.

I think everyone on this board is in for cutting the waste. I am not by any means on board to cut the actual size and scope of the military.

texansrangerfan73
03-06-2014, 01:31 PM
I'm just curious.. did you get that defensive about this when Donald Rumsfeld wanted to drastically cut man power in the US military in the mid 2000's? You know right in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan? "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you want" -Donald Rumsfeld.


Cutting stuff like f 22's that cost over 20 million dollars each and are never used, or tank brigades that go from the factory floor to a garage to collect dust, or any other wasteful military industrial complex bs that exists... I'm all for that. If we cut our military by 50% we would still spend more than the next 10 countries combined.... chew on that for a minute.

Sorry no comment!

duane1969
03-06-2014, 02:46 PM
they aren't showing the news up there? Do you get CNN? Lindsay Graham and John McCain have gone seemingly nuts and other republicans have said things like "Putin is playing Chess and we're playing marbles"... its been all over tv.. please dont make me chase quotes when im half asleep man lol

This what happens when you listen to liberal biased media that takes pleasure in taking things out of context. If you are incapable or uninterested in being more efficiently informed then you are failing yourself.

First. Lindsey Graham and John McCain have not said that Putin is more admirable than Obama. That is pure rubbish and my guess is nothing more than a lie that you either made up or someone else made up for dramatic effect. In fact Graham said that Obama needs to stop going on TV talking about what he is going to do and inviting trouble when everyone knows that Obama will never, ever take military action against Russia. Mike Rogers made the chess/marbles statement in reference to Obama advisors, and he is correct. All Obama and his advisors are doing is re-igniting the Cold War over a conflict that has been going on for 50 years. All Obama is doing is trying to look like a strong leader when the entire world knows he is not.


How about we don't go anywhere period.

How about we bring all our good young men and women and home tell the world we're done being the freaking police.

I agree 100%


How about we cut the military budget by at LEAST half and use that money to fix the seemingly endless problems we have here at home.

This is the liberal position that I do not understand. What problems will be fixed? If you cut the budget by 50% then you cut the amount of people employed by the military by 50%. Is 700,000 additional unemployed Americans needing welfare and unemployment going to make things better? (FYI 700,000 is only considering active duty and doesn't include Reserves and National Guard). For some reason I don't see taking a bunch of working people and making them unemployed a logical answer.

Oh, let's not forget that cutting the military budget by 50% also means 50% less military contracts. What do you think will happen to all of those workers that work for companies that supply the military with consumable goods? You got it. More unemployed.


They think this is leadership and strength, when in reality it shows petulance and it alienates everyone on all sides.

How so? We have the same allies we have always had. The only people we seem to anger are the ones who our actions don't support...and liberals.


I'm just curious.. did you get that defensive about this when Donald Rumsfeld wanted to drastically cut man power in the US military in the mid 2000's? You know right in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan? "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you want" -Donald Rumsfeld.


Cutting stuff like f 22's that cost over 20 million dollars each and are never used, or tank brigades that go from the factory floor to a garage to collect dust, or any other wasteful military industrial complex bs that exists... I'm all for that. If we cut our military by 50% we would still spend more than the next 10 countries combined.... chew on that for a minute.

Actually I did criticize the cuts during the Bush administration. See my response above to JustAlex regarding cutting the military budget by 50%.

habsheaven
03-06-2014, 03:12 PM
I heard somewhere that 50% of the current military budget goes towards benefits and care for the personnel (probably wages too), so it would be impossible to make that large a cut without causing serious damage to the economy. With that said though, it is obvious too much money is being spent on the military. How about taking advantage of some military expertise and re-allocating personnel and equipment into an infrastructure program of sorts. That would employ/train soldiers in areas other than fighting and allow "military contractors" to do other work for the government. New highways, levees and bridges have to be better for America than a bunch of tanks sitting in a parking lot.

centrehice
03-06-2014, 03:29 PM
I think everyone on this board is in for cutting the waste. I am not by any means on board to cut the actual size and scope of the military.

It has to come down by some 10% or so in personnel because of the redundancies. The guys inventorying the $400.00 Toilet Seats and the unusable jets and tanks, will simply be issued their pensions with a 16 month window, followed by a re-education program. Nothing wrong with that.

It would be nice to get out of something with a small pension at age 45 or younger, you still have your full life ahead of you.

sanfran22
03-06-2014, 03:39 PM
It has to come down by some 10% or so in personnel because of the redundancies. The guys inventorying the $400.00 Toilet Seats and the unusable jets and tanks, will simply be issued their pensions with a 16 month window, followed by a re-education program. Nothing wrong with that.

It would be nice to get out of something with a small pension at age 45 or younger, you still have your full life ahead of you.

That would fall under waste. If you have 3 guys counting the same toilet seat, then make a cut. No problem there. But I wouldn't cut our actual forces.

Imac7065
03-06-2014, 04:34 PM
That would fall under waste. If you have 3 guys counting the same toilet seat, then make a cut. No problem there. But I wouldn't cut our actual forces.

Its a cliche from the movie Independence Day, but my buddy was in the budget office on a Naval Cruiser and told me that in the US military there literally are $15,000 hammers, $20,000 toilet sets, and $40,000 bullets.... where that money goes... I'd love to know

sanfran22
03-06-2014, 04:36 PM
Its a cliche from the movie Independence Day, but my buddy was in the budget office on a Naval Cruiser and told me that in the US military there literally are $15,000 hammers, $20,000 toilet sets, and $40,000 bullets.... where that money goes... I'd love to know
Pet projects.

duane1969
03-06-2014, 10:24 PM
The funny part to all of this is that most people have absolutely NO IDEA what all the term "military spending" covers. For example. Did you know the FBI, Homeland Security, State Department, National Nuclear Security Administration and Veterans Administration all fall under that budget and account for just under 21% of the budget? Cutting the military spending budget isn't a simplistic numbers game. It is real easy to sit behind your keyboard and declare that a 50% budget cut is needed, but do you even consider how the the guys who investigate interstate crimes (FBI), the guys who protect our nuclear power plants from terrorist action (National Nuclear Security), the guys who play a role in international negotiations (State Department) and the people who take care of our retired veterans are going to deal with a 50% reduction in staff? I would love to see just one of you have the spine to put your money where your mouth is and stand at the door of the local VA hospital and turn away veterans in need of health care because there aren't enough doctors and nurses to treat them.

And I love how all of the "Cut the budget by 50%!" crowd just ignored my point that a 50% budget cut would result in 700,000+ lost jobs. Way to go guys. You have all of the answers as long as you ignore the tough questions.

duane1969
03-06-2014, 10:28 PM
Its a cliche from the movie Independence Day, but my buddy was in the budget office on a Naval Cruiser and told me that in the US military there literally are $15,000 hammers, $20,000 toilet sets, and $40,000 bullets.... where that money goes... I'd love to know

Those are extreme instances, but that is the beauty of the government. In order to track spending they limit who you can buy from. I am a teacher and I can buy a stapler from Walmart for $5, but because my employer has to be able to justify where money is spent I can only buy from a company that accepts purchase orders issued by the county school system. These companies know they get the upper hand by accepting government purchase orders so they jack up their prices. Instead a stapler cost me $29.

pwaldo
03-06-2014, 10:30 PM
Does anybody like Lindsay Graham or John McCain?

duane1969
03-06-2014, 10:32 PM
I heard somewhere that 50% of the current military budget goes towards benefits and care for the personnel (probably wages too), so it would be impossible to make that large a cut without causing serious damage to the economy. With that said though, it is obvious too much money is being spent on the military. How about taking advantage of some military expertise and re-allocating personnel and equipment into an infrastructure program of sorts. That would employ/train soldiers in areas other than fighting and allow "military contractors" to do other work for the government. New highways, levees and bridges have to be better for America than a bunch of tanks sitting in a parking lot.

In 2014 $91.9 billion, or 12% of the budget will go towards supporting Obama's war in Afghanistan alone. I fully support ending that debacle and bringing those troops home.

habsheaven
03-06-2014, 10:34 PM
The funny part to all of this is that most people have absolutely NO IDEA what all the term "military spending" covers. For example. Did you know the FBI, Homeland Security, State Department, National Nuclear Security Administration and Veterans Administration all fall under that budget and account for just under 21% of the budget? Cutting the military spending budget isn't a simplistic numbers game. It is real easy to sit behind your keyboard and declare that a 50% budget cut is needed, but do you even consider how the the guys who investigate interstate crimes (FBI), the guys who protect our nuclear power plants from terrorist action (National Nuclear Security), the guys who play a role in international negotiations (State Department) and the people who take care of our retired veterans are going to deal with a 50% reduction in staff? I would love to see just one of you have the spine to put your money where your mouth is and stand at the door of the local VA hospital and turn away veterans in need of health care because there aren't enough doctors and nurses to treat them.

And I love how all of the "Cut the budget by 50%!" crowd just ignored my point that a 50% budget cut would result in 700,000+ lost jobs. Way to go guys. You have all of the answers as long as you ignore the tough questions.

Obviously, you skipped my post.

duane1969
03-06-2014, 10:34 PM
Does anybody like Lindsay Graham or John McCain?

Doesn't justify making up things that they said. Nobody likes Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid either, but I don't see anyone taking what they say out of context or blatantly making stuff up about them just to support a rant.

duane1969
03-06-2014, 10:36 PM
Obviously, you skipped my post.

1) I said MOST

2) Your post actually inspired me to take a look-see at what departments are funded under the military budget. Even I was surprised that the FBI falls under it.

Wickabee
03-06-2014, 11:16 PM
In 2014 $91.9 billion, or 12% of the budget will go towards supporting Obama's war in Afghanistan alone. I fully support ending that debacle and bringing those troops home.

Why is that Obama's war? That one actually had a little logic (non oil related logic anyway) than the Iraq debacle. Funny thing, one guy entered both of those. So they're really both his wars.

duane1969
03-07-2014, 11:09 AM
Why is that Obama's war? That one actually had a little logic (non oil related logic anyway) than the Iraq debacle. Funny thing, one guy entered both of those. So they're really both his wars.

In 2008 Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and make Afghanistan his focus. In the years since then he did just that. Yes, the war in Afghanistan was started during Bush's administration, but there is no doubt that Obama has made this his war. Just look at the raw cost of the war there. Between 2000 and 2008 Bush spent $171 billion dollars on the Afghanistan war (an average of $21 billion per year). From 2009 to 2013 Obama has spent $486 billion with another $90+ billion planned for 2014 (an average of $115 billion per year, a 547% increase). By the same measure, look at the troops killed. During Bush's 8 years there were 630 (an average of 78 per year), in Obama's 5 years there have been 1,671 (an average of 334 per year, a 428% increase). Yes, it started under Bush, but Obama has clearly taken the reigns on this one and ran with it. Blaming Bush for a 400%+ increase in deaths and a 500%+ increase in spending under Obama's watch would be illogical.

sanfran22
03-07-2014, 11:16 AM
Does anybody like Lindsay Graham or John McCain?

Not really, but no need to twist what they actually say.....

Wickabee
03-07-2014, 11:21 AM
In 2008 Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and make Afghanistan his focus. In the years since then he did just that. Yes, the war in Afghanistan was started during Bush's administration, but there is no doubt that Obama has made this his war. Just look at the raw cost of the war there. Between 2000 and 2008 Bush spent $171 billion dollars on the Afghanistan war (an average of $21 billion per year). From 2009 to 2013 Obama has spent $486 billion with another $90+ billion planned for 2014 (an average of $115 billion per year, a 547% increase). By the same measure, look at the troops killed. During Bush's 8 years there were 630 (an average of 78 per year), in Obama's 5 years there have been 1,671 (an average of 334 per year, a 428% increase). Yes, it started under Bush, but Obama has clearly taken the reigns on this one and ran with it. Blaming Bush for a 400%+ increase in deaths and a 500%+ increase in spending under Obama's watch would be illogical.
So Bush started a nonsense war and one with actual logic. You're now calling it "his" because the somewhat logical one is still going, and you aren't worried about the nonsense waste because "well, it's over now don't bring up the past."

But you're not just another Republican, right.

duane1969
03-07-2014, 12:21 PM
So Bush started a nonsense war and one with actual logic. You're now calling it "his" because the somewhat logical one is still going, and you aren't worried about the nonsense waste because "well, it's over now don't bring up the past."

But you're not just another Republican, right.

I call it "his" because he has made it his. No other reason but that. Bush started it, Obama took up the cause and magnified it by 4x-5x. To try and say that the increase in cost and lives is Bush's fault when it clearly is not would be ludicrous.

At this point I oppose any military action outside of our own borders. When those wars started I, like a tremendous majority of Americans, supported them. However, when we reached the point of "mission accomplished" those wars should have stopped. The war in Iraq was to topple Saddam Hussein and help establish a more democratic society. Once that was done we effectively pulled out (although we still are sending troops there). The goal of the war in Afghanistan was to capture Osama bin Laden. Once we either captured or killed him or knew for sure that he was no longer in Afghanistan the mission in Afghanistan should have ceased. OBL was killed 3 years ago, staying there now is not Bush's fault nor is it part of his original plan.

Wickabee
03-07-2014, 01:00 PM
Obama didn't have a lot of choice. Pulling out of Afghanistan required Canada to stay. We left first, which is why he's not too fond of your neighbour to the north.

Being that our PM was (still is) a big Bush fanboy, it wouldn't surprise me to find out it was planned that way just so you would call it "Obama's war."