Obama's Legacy: richest got richer and poorest got poorer faster than under Bush/Republicans

[The Rabbi]

Well.......we are more powerful than the next ten countries combined. Isn't that a good thing?

It's a question of ....is there a military threat worthy of all that expenditure?

Used to be USSR.......now?
not much

Nope, China is still arming up. Iran? Do you really think they want nuclear power for electricity? How many times has that little imp in North Korea launched threats at us?

Our newest enemy is not really a country, but a movement worldwide. They were able to succeed in the most terrible attack on the US in our history, and they're not done either.

And what would our position be if we ended up in WW III? Not too difficult to imagine. Since our fearful leader just about abandoned Israel, what do you suppose would happen if they decided do or die with Iran or the Palestinians?

As the old saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it.

Cool

Name the sides in WWIII

On their side many of the Arab nations should this involve the Palestinians. In Iran's case, expect China to join in on the fun and who knows, maybe even Russia and yes, some other Arab nations.

OK, I'll take the U.S., England, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and S Korea

Oh look, a meaningless graph.
OK here's another opportunity for Rightwinger to beclown himself. Please explain what you think this graph shows.

 

[rightwinger]

I think that China has one aircraft carrier. Iran has a few pickup trucks with surface to air missiles.

The key difference between China, Russia and the US is that we have the Navy and logistics structure to fight battles anywhere in the world....they don't

 

[rightwinger]

It's a question of ....is there a military threat worthy of all that expenditure?

Used to be USSR.......now?
not much

Nope, China is still arming up. Iran? Do you really think they want nuclear power for electricity? How many times has that little imp in North Korea launched threats at us?

Our newest enemy is not really a country, but a movement worldwide. They were able to succeed in the most terrible attack on the US in our history, and they're not done either.

And what would our position be if we ended up in WW III? Not too difficult to imagine. Since our fearful leader just about abandoned Israel, what do you suppose would happen if they decided do or die with Iran or the Palestinians?

As the old saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it.

Cool

Name the sides in WWIII

On their side many of the Arab nations should this involve the Palestinians. In Iran's case, expect China to join in on the fun and who knows, maybe even Russia and yes, some other Arab nations.

OK, I'll take the U.S., England, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and S Korea

Oh look, a meaningless graph.
OK here's another opportunity for Rightwinger to beclown himself. Please explain what you think this graph shows.

Meaningless?

Why don't you just concede and be done with it?
Or else you could claim one of your meaningless "victories"

 

[rdean]

When have they ever obstructed spending? They just increased the debt limit.

Well, dupe, that has nothing to do with spending, just with paying the bills, and was never an issue until your a-holes came along. But thanks for now finally acting like adults, and not having 1%+ GDP loss phony crises every 6 months in the middle of YOUR CORRUPT PUB world depression.

I wasn't saying anything good about repubs.. They were elected to decrease debt, they never do that..

They did it during the Clinton administration. They've lowered the deficit greatly under DumBama. Without DumBama, we would probably have a balanced budget and then some to pay off the debt.

That's satire, right?

No, it's reality. Just like reality is you want to give DumBama credit for any occurrence that happens to be positive but blame Republicans and Bush when things (most of them) don't go his way.

The United States Congress are the people that write laws, create a budget and spend our money. With the exception of the Bush years, the Republicans in Congress have limited and lowered spending both during the Clinton and DumBama administrations.

That's not true.

 

[rightwinger]

It's a question of ....is there a military threat worthy of all that expenditure?

Used to be USSR.......now?
not much

Every military threat is worthy of that expenditure. Being a world power means having the means to project that power globally. So it doesnt matter if Russia or China has that capability or not.

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

 

[Brain357]

Every military threat is worthy of that expenditure. Being a world power means having the means to project that power globally. So it doesnt matter if Russia or China has that capability or not.

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

And while we ran iraq over easily, we didn't know what to do after. So we created more mess than we fixed. That is why we can't just run around attacking everyone.

 

[rightwinger]

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

And while we ran iraq over easily, we didn't know what to do after. So we created more mess than we fixed. That is why we can't just run around attacking everyone.

We have the nastiest military force in the history of mankind. Nobody comes close

But our citizens are wise to more Vietnams and Iraqs where we take large numbers of casualties for a cause nobody really supports

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope, China is still arming up. Iran? Do you really think they want nuclear power for electricity? How many times has that little imp in North Korea launched threats at us?

Our newest enemy is not really a country, but a movement worldwide. They were able to succeed in the most terrible attack on the US in our history, and they're not done either.

And what would our position be if we ended up in WW III? Not too difficult to imagine. Since our fearful leader just about abandoned Israel, what do you suppose would happen if they decided do or die with Iran or the Palestinians?

As the old saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it.

Cool

Name the sides in WWIII

On their side many of the Arab nations should this involve the Palestinians. In Iran's case, expect China to join in on the fun and who knows, maybe even Russia and yes, some other Arab nations.

OK, I'll take the U.S., England, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and S Korea

Oh look, a meaningless graph.
OK here's another opportunity for Rightwinger to beclown himself. Please explain what you think this graph shows.

Meaningless?

Why don't you just concede and be done with it?
Or else you could claim one of your meaningless "victories"

I dont need to claim anything. I challenged you to explain what this graph means. You failed. That doesnt require a declaration. It is fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

Every military threat is worthy of that expenditure. Being a world power means having the means to project that power globally. So it doesnt matter if Russia or China has that capability or not.

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

So how come we're losing?
We have the smallest military since before WW2. Our enemies see this and rejoice.

 

[The Rabbi]

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

And while we ran iraq over easily, we didn't know what to do after. So we created more mess than we fixed. That is why we can't just run around attacking everyone.

We have the nastiest military force in the history of mankind. Nobody comes close

But our citizens are wise to more Vietnams and Iraqs where we take large numbers of casualties for a cause nobody really supports

We didnt take large numbers of casualties in Iraq, doofus. And obviously everyone supported the war because Congress voted for it and continued to fund it.

 

[rightwinger]

Cool

Name the sides in WWIII

On their side many of the Arab nations should this involve the Palestinians. In Iran's case, expect China to join in on the fun and who knows, maybe even Russia and yes, some other Arab nations.

OK, I'll take the U.S., England, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and S Korea

Oh look, a meaningless graph.
OK here's another opportunity for Rightwinger to beclown himself. Please explain what you think this graph shows.

Meaningless?

Why don't you just concede and be done with it?
Or else you could claim one of your meaningless "victories"

I dont need to claim anything. I challenged you to explain what this graph means. You failed. That doesnt require a declaration. It is fact.

Your inability to read a graph is not my concern

If you have a point to make, you are welcome to make it and face the consequences

 

[rightwinger]

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

And while we ran iraq over easily, we didn't know what to do after. So we created more mess than we fixed. That is why we can't just run around attacking everyone.

We have the nastiest military force in the history of mankind. Nobody comes close

But our citizens are wise to more Vietnams and Iraqs where we take large numbers of casualties for a cause nobody really supports

We didnt take large numbers of casualties in Iraq, doofus. And obviously everyone supported the war because Congress voted for it and continued to fund it.

The families of 5000 dead feel otherwise

So did the American people who demanded we get out

 

[rightwinger]

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

So how come we're losing?
We have the smallest military since before WW2. Our enemies see this and rejoice.

Small how?

Small in military power?
Small in its ability to dominate the globe?
Small in the number of soldiers and ships needed to perform its mission?

Prior to WWII we had the 17th military in the world, today we are more powerful than the next twelve nations combined

 

[The Rabbi]

On their side many of the Arab nations should this involve the Palestinians. In Iran's case, expect China to join in on the fun and who knows, maybe even Russia and yes, some other Arab nations.

OK, I'll take the U.S., England, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and S Korea

Oh look, a meaningless graph.
OK here's another opportunity for Rightwinger to beclown himself. Please explain what you think this graph shows.

Meaningless?

Why don't you just concede and be done with it?
Or else you could claim one of your meaningless "victories"

I dont need to claim anything. I challenged you to explain what this graph means. You failed. That doesnt require a declaration. It is fact.

Your inability to read a graph is not my concern

If you have a point to make, you are welcome to make it and face the consequences

LOL!
You are the one unable to read a graph. I didnt post that meaningless tripe. You did. You are responsible. But responsibility was never a value with you, was it?
Your graph is meaningless, your arguments are worthless, your opinion therefore is null and void. Just the howling of a dog in a storm. Nothing more than that.
Thanks, Rightwinger, it is seldom that you are defeated this early in the day.

 

[The Rabbi]

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

So how come we're losing?
We have the smallest military since before WW2. Our enemies see this and rejoice.

Small how?

Small in military power?
Small in its ability to dominate the globe?
Small in the number of soldiers and ships needed to perform its mission?

Prior to WWII we had the 17th military in the world, today we are more powerful than the next twelve nations combined

We have the smallest military since before WW2. This is fact. An inconvenient one for you. Even the SecDef is warning we cannot carry out our mission in the world.

 

[rightwinger]

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

So how come we're losing?
We have the smallest military since before WW2. Our enemies see this and rejoice.

Small how?

Small in military power?
Small in its ability to dominate the globe?
Small in the number of soldiers and ships needed to perform its mission?

Prior to WWII we had the 17th military in the world, today we are more powerful than the next twelve nations combined

We have the smallest military since before WW2. This is fact. An inconvenient one for you. Even the SecDef is warning we cannot carry out our mission in the world.

Small how?

Small in budget?
Small in strength?

You are not naive to measure a modern military force by the number of soldiers are you? You might as well count the number of planes and tanks in WWII and claim we are weaker today because we do not have as many

 

[Brain357]

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

So how come we're losing?
We have the smallest military since before WW2. Our enemies see this and rejoice.

Losing what?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every military threat is worthy of that expenditure. Being a world power means having the means to project that power globally. So it doesnt matter if Russia or China has that capability or not.

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

So what was our most success in Iraq? The surge. What is a surge? More military boots on the ground. It worked.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, dupe, that has nothing to do with spending, just with paying the bills, and was never an issue until your a-holes came along. But thanks for now finally acting like adults, and not having 1%+ GDP loss phony crises every 6 months in the middle of YOUR CORRUPT PUB world depression.

I wasn't saying anything good about repubs.. They were elected to decrease debt, they never do that..

They did it during the Clinton administration. They've lowered the deficit greatly under DumBama. Without DumBama, we would probably have a balanced budget and then some to pay off the debt.

That's satire, right?

No, it's reality. Just like reality is you want to give DumBama credit for any occurrence that happens to be positive but blame Republicans and Bush when things (most of them) don't go his way.

The United States Congress are the people that write laws, create a budget and spend our money. With the exception of the Bush years, the Republicans in Congress have limited and lowered spending both during the Clinton and DumBama administrations.

That's not true.

Sure it is. Look at our lower deficits after Republicans took over leadership of Congress during the DumBama years. Under Clinton, we not only had a balanced budget, but a projected surplus to boot.

 

[rightwinger]

Sucker

Throwing unlimited money when there is not an appropriate threat is throwing money down the drain

Idiot.
Since the lag time to produce weapons etc is so long it is much longer than any threat.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Bozo

Our prospective enemy needs to develop weapons before they can be considered a threat

Nobody is remotely close today. We have a stronger military than the next 14 nations combined .....and 12 of the 14 are our allies

So? You are an ignoramus. How much did it take to wage war in Afghanistan against a bunch of tribesmen? We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

And we have it

But it doesn't take a Military larger than the next 14 countries to defeat Afghan tribesmen

What restricts our military involvement around the world is not the size of our military, but how many casualties we are willing to tolerate

So what was our most success in Iraq? The surge. What is a surge? More military boots on the ground. It worked.

Surge was only necessary to cover our ass

Never should have been there in the first place