Thanks Obama our Military is under funded

[P@triot]

Our military spends 43 cents of every Defense dollar spent

Yup, our military must be underfunded

What you societal parasites fail to realize though is that there is zero room for error. Zero. The moment this nation is overthrown or nuked - it's game over. Permanently. There is no getting it back. So we must be as overzealously vigilant about defense as human possibly.

If the U.S.S.R. or Hitler had developed the nuclear weapon first - none of us would be here right now. It's a race to develop the next weapon or the next defense system and it's winner take all. We wouldn't expect ideological and immature liberals to understand though.

Zero room for error?
We are stronger than the next eight nations combined
Six of the eight are our allies

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

Then we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. We have cruise missiles that skim the surface and can't be intercepted. We have cyber tecnologies to bring their communications and financial infrastructure down

Astoundingly ignorant. Even by your standards. I just said what happens when they develop the technology that takes down missiles - that includes "cruise missiles skimming across the surface" genius.

And...China and Russia both have every bit the sophisticated cyber technologies to bring our communications and financial infrastructure down. In fact, China broke into the DoD several years ago and sat there for several days pulling down our entire nuclear arsenal. The types of nukes we have, where they are located, how to build them, etc. The whole thing.

You make the most immature comments every time you've been defeated in an argument. I asked you to be honest and you couldn't even do that one time. Which really illustrates what an immature partisan hack you are. You just threw shit at a wall twice hoping it would stick and it didn't. Would you like to try again? I'll pose the question clearly for you just to help:

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

(Hint: you can't win this argument. Whoever develops the next equivalent to the nuclear bomb in the 1940's wins. It's a fact and you know it. You just hate that you can't dispute it).

 

[P@triot]

You just love your special interests

Actually - you just love your special interests. Specifically, your ability to mooch off of the American tax payer like a parasite. You're so afraid that you'll actually have to be an adult someday and provide for yourself. Gasp!

 

[Lakhota]

Actually, defense spending should be cut in half. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial state.

 

[rightwinger]

Our military spends 43 cents of every Defense dollar spent

Yup, our military must be underfunded

What you societal parasites fail to realize though is that there is zero room for error. Zero. The moment this nation is overthrown or nuked - it's game over. Permanently. There is no getting it back. So we must be as overzealously vigilant about defense as human possibly.

If the U.S.S.R. or Hitler had developed the nuclear weapon first - none of us would be here right now. It's a race to develop the next weapon or the next defense system and it's winner take all. We wouldn't expect ideological and immature liberals to understand though.

Zero room for error?
We are stronger than the next eight nations combined
Six of the eight are our allies

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

Then we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. We have cruise missiles that skim the surface and can't be intercepted. We have cyber tecnologies to bring their communications and financial infrastructure down

Astoundingly ignorant. Even by your standards. I just said what happens when they develop the technology that takes down missiles - that includes "cruise missiles skimming across the surface" genius.

And...China and Russia both have every bit the sophisticated cyber technologies to bring our communications and financial infrastructure down. In fact, China broke into the DoD several years ago and sat there for several days pulling down our entire nuclear arsenal. The types of nukes we have, where they are located, how to build them, etc. The whole thing.

You make the most immature comments every time you've been defeated in an argument. I asked you to be honest and you couldn't even do that one time. Which really illustrates what an immature partisan hack you are. You just threw shit at a wall twice hoping it would stick and it didn't. Would you like to try again? I'll pose the question clearly for you just to help:

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

(Hint: you can't win this argument. Whoever develops the next equivalent to the nuclear bomb in the 1940's wins. It's a fact and you know it. You just hate that you can't dispute it).

Self declared victories are so shallow, wouldn't you agree?

There is no technology to take down cruise missiles. If there was, we would have it before Russia and China

If you want to play that game....then all sides have technology to block a nuclear attack. Under those conditions, there are no needs for any nuclear weapons

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, defense spending should be cut in half. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial state.

He also reminded us that every carrier, every major defense acquisition takes food away from the hungry

 

[P@triot]

What you societal parasites fail to realize though is that there is zero room for error. Zero. The moment this nation is overthrown or nuked - it's game over. Permanently. There is no getting it back. So we must be as overzealously vigilant about defense as human possibly.

If the U.S.S.R. or Hitler had developed the nuclear weapon first - none of us would be here right now. It's a race to develop the next weapon or the next defense system and it's winner take all. We wouldn't expect ideological and immature liberals to understand though.

Zero room for error?
We are stronger than the next eight nations combined
Six of the eight are our allies

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

Then we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. We have cruise missiles that skim the surface and can't be intercepted. We have cyber tecnologies to bring their communications and financial infrastructure down

Astoundingly ignorant. Even by your standards. I just said what happens when they develop the technology that takes down missiles - that includes "cruise missiles skimming across the surface" genius.

And...China and Russia both have every bit the sophisticated cyber technologies to bring our communications and financial infrastructure down. In fact, China broke into the DoD several years ago and sat there for several days pulling down our entire nuclear arsenal. The types of nukes we have, where they are located, how to build them, etc. The whole thing.

You make the most immature comments every time you've been defeated in an argument. I asked you to be honest and you couldn't even do that one time. Which really illustrates what an immature partisan hack you are. You just threw shit at a wall twice hoping it would stick and it didn't. Would you like to try again? I'll pose the question clearly for you just to help:

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

(Hint: you can't win this argument. Whoever develops the next equivalent to the nuclear bomb in the 1940's wins. It's a fact and you know it. You just hate that you can't dispute it).

Self declared victories are so shallow, wouldn't you agree?

There is no technology to take down cruise missiles. If there was, we would have it before Russia and China

If you want to play that game....then all sides have technology to block a nuclear attack. Under those conditions, there are no needs for any nuclear weapons

You want to know what is even more "shallow"? Pretending not to understand the question. I said clearly "what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air". I never said they had it. The point of the question is that each side is working around the clock to develop the next technology that will defeat their enemy.

By the way - I forgot to mention how nonsensical your previous post was regarding "cruise missiles". You really think we could fight a war in which our enemy was attacking us with nuclear missiles and our response were weak and pitiful cruise missiles?

Again...you know you're wrong on this. But as usual, you can't bring yourself to admit it. Which ever side creates the next equivalent of the nuclear bomb wins. Which is why we must be hyper-vigilant 24x7 in sending money on defense. Dumbocrats are so immature about this issue. This isn't the 1800's where if we lost, we could conceivably get it back. Weapons and systems (such as satellite surveillance, etc.) are so advanced down that once it's over - it is forever over. There is no getting it back. A few American farmers armed with muskets and canons are going to over take Russia or China like we did England 250 years ago.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, defense spending should be cut in half. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial state.

He also reminded us that every carrier, every major defense acquisition takes food away from the hungry

It's not the government's job to feed the hungry. This has been explained to you. It's your job to be a big boy RW and provide for yourself. I'm sorry that it bothers you - but it's just a fact.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, defense spending should be cut in half. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial state.

Actually....defense spending should be doubled and all social spending should be completely eliminated. This would:

• Make us exponentially safer and secure as a nation

• Eliminate the national debt rapidly

• Restore Constitutional government

There aren't too many times in life where such a simple solution is the ultimate win-win-win, but this is one of them.

 

[ogibillm]

some of you guys really love your soecial interests.

you bitch about low military spending bit cant tell us why it needs to be higher

We can't? Here's you answer: "to defend our nation". Did you seriously need someone to explain that to you? Unbelievable...

do you realize how specious that argument is?

why don't we just dedicate the entire federal budget to the military?

Because we don't need the entire federal budget. We only need $650 billion.

but why only $650 billion? where do you come up.with that number?

 

[ogibillm]

Actually, defense spending should be cut in half. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial state.

Actually....defense spending should be doubled and all social spending should be completely eliminated. This would:

• Make us exponentially safer and secure as a nation

Explain how.

 

[P@triot]

some of you guys really love your soecial interests.

you bitch about low military spending bit cant tell us why it needs to be higher

We can't? Here's you answer: "to defend our nation". Did you seriously need someone to explain that to you? Unbelievable...

do you realize how specious that argument is?

why don't we just dedicate the entire federal budget to the military?

Because we don't need the entire federal budget. We only need $650 billion.

but why only $650 billion? where do you come up.with that number?

Well that was sort of tongue-in-cheek. That's the current defense budget. Realistically, we need a lot more. That number should probably be around $850 billion - $900 billion.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, defense spending should be cut in half. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial state.

Actually....defense spending should be doubled and all social spending should be completely eliminated. This would:

• Make us exponentially safer and secure as a nation

Explain how.

Because we would have the money necessary to fund the personnel, equipment, and R&D necessary to defend this nation. Did you really need something so basic explained to you or are you just attempting to be a troll here?

 

[ogibillm]

Actually, defense spending should be cut in half. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial state.

Actually....defense spending should be doubled and all social spending should be completely eliminated. This would:

• Make us exponentially safer and secure as a nation

Explain how.

Because we would have the money necessary to fund the personnel, equipment, and R&D necessary to defend this nation. Did you really need something so basic explained to you or are you just attempting to be a troll here?

what threat would we be better protected against?

 

[rightwinger]

Zero room for error?
We are stronger than the next eight nations combined
Six of the eight are our allies

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

Then we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. We have cruise missiles that skim the surface and can't be intercepted. We have cyber tecnologies to bring their communications and financial infrastructure down

Astoundingly ignorant. Even by your standards. I just said what happens when they develop the technology that takes down missiles - that includes "cruise missiles skimming across the surface" genius.

And...China and Russia both have every bit the sophisticated cyber technologies to bring our communications and financial infrastructure down. In fact, China broke into the DoD several years ago and sat there for several days pulling down our entire nuclear arsenal. The types of nukes we have, where they are located, how to build them, etc. The whole thing.

You make the most immature comments every time you've been defeated in an argument. I asked you to be honest and you couldn't even do that one time. Which really illustrates what an immature partisan hack you are. You just threw shit at a wall twice hoping it would stick and it didn't. Would you like to try again? I'll pose the question clearly for you just to help:

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

(Hint: you can't win this argument. Whoever develops the next equivalent to the nuclear bomb in the 1940's wins. It's a fact and you know it. You just hate that you can't dispute it).

Self declared victories are so shallow, wouldn't you agree?

There is no technology to take down cruise missiles. If there was, we would have it before Russia and China

If you want to play that game....then all sides have technology to block a nuclear attack. Under those conditions, there are no needs for any nuclear weapons

You want to know what is even more "shallow"? Pretending not to understand the question. I said clearly "what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air". I never said they had it. The point of the question is that each side is working around the clock to develop the next technology that will defeat their enemy.

By the way - I forgot to mention how nonsensical your previous post was regarding "cruise missiles". You really think we could fight a war in which our enemy was attacking us with nuclear missiles and our response were weak and pitiful cruise missiles?

Again...you know you're wrong on this. But as usual, you can't bring yourself to admit it. Which ever side creates the next equivalent of the nuclear bomb wins. Which is why we must be hyper-vigilant 24x7 in sending money on defense. Dumbocrats are so immature about this issue. This isn't the 1800's where if we lost, we could conceivably get it back. Weapons and systems (such as satellite surveillance, etc.) are so advanced down that once it's over - it is forever over. There is no getting it back. A few American farmers armed with muskets and canons are going to over take Russia or China like we did England 250 years ago.

What happens if they develop a "Death Ray" ?

You are such a tool

 

[P@triot]

You are such a tool

Thank you! You can't dispute it but you don't want to admit it. Game over.

 

[Faun]

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

Then we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. We have cruise missiles that skim the surface and can't be intercepted. We have cyber tecnologies to bring their communications and financial infrastructure down

Astoundingly ignorant. Even by your standards. I just said what happens when they develop the technology that takes down missiles - that includes "cruise missiles skimming across the surface" genius.

And...China and Russia both have every bit the sophisticated cyber technologies to bring our communications and financial infrastructure down. In fact, China broke into the DoD several years ago and sat there for several days pulling down our entire nuclear arsenal. The types of nukes we have, where they are located, how to build them, etc. The whole thing.

You make the most immature comments every time you've been defeated in an argument. I asked you to be honest and you couldn't even do that one time. Which really illustrates what an immature partisan hack you are. You just threw shit at a wall twice hoping it would stick and it didn't. Would you like to try again? I'll pose the question clearly for you just to help:

And what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air? Then what RW? Be honest....

(Hint: you can't win this argument. Whoever develops the next equivalent to the nuclear bomb in the 1940's wins. It's a fact and you know it. You just hate that you can't dispute it).

Self declared victories are so shallow, wouldn't you agree?

There is no technology to take down cruise missiles. If there was, we would have it before Russia and China

If you want to play that game....then all sides have technology to block a nuclear attack. Under those conditions, there are no needs for any nuclear weapons

You want to know what is even more "shallow"? Pretending not to understand the question. I said clearly "what happens if the other two develop an anti-ballistic missile system that can knock our nuclear arsenal out of the air". I never said they had it. The point of the question is that each side is working around the clock to develop the next technology that will defeat their enemy.

By the way - I forgot to mention how nonsensical your previous post was regarding "cruise missiles". You really think we could fight a war in which our enemy was attacking us with nuclear missiles and our response were weak and pitiful cruise missiles?

Again...you know you're wrong on this. But as usual, you can't bring yourself to admit it. Which ever side creates the next equivalent of the nuclear bomb wins. Which is why we must be hyper-vigilant 24x7 in sending money on defense. Dumbocrats are so immature about this issue. This isn't the 1800's where if we lost, we could conceivably get it back. Weapons and systems (such as satellite surveillance, etc.) are so advanced down that once it's over - it is forever over. There is no getting it back. A few American farmers armed with muskets and canons are going to over take Russia or China like we did England 250 years ago.

What happens if they develop a "Death Ray" ?

You are such a tool

Being conservative means being a coward and crapping your pants on a daily basis.