If republicans claim to be so opposed to socialism, why is it that they are so content with...

[Billy000]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

If you were to actually speak or actually listen to a conservative, they would tell you that, first and foremost, the duty of the government is to protect its citizens.

So they will always push for as much military spending as possible. Try to get them to take a dollar out of the military budget and you'll have a big ol' fight, unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who isn't crazed by their partisan ideology knows this.

I wonder why it's so important for you to be a troll. You try so dang hard.

.

What is a troll to you? Is PoliticalChic a troll?

Sure. People who are more interested in flinging poo than in civil discourse.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Surely you can't be attempting to stimulate civil discourse with your behavior, so it must be the poo thing.

It's probably safe to surmise, then, that you'd prefer to make divisions even worse, and I wonder why.

Your call, I was just curious. I'm fascinated by the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues.

.

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

Or it is because it is their constitutional obligation to provide for defense.

That said you could have a done a lot better, but you're a tier 11 intellectual so you're forgiven. Carry on with your 'tardation.

 

[gipper]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

There is little difference between Rs and Ds. When your understand that, you will have attained a level of understanding most 12 years easily attain.

Stop being a partisan little bitch and accept the reality that both parties are near mirror images of each other.

The hypocrite here is you.

What sets dems apart is that they don't bitch about socialism or big spending. That's the point

Then your point lacks intelligence. It does not matter what any politician says. Most of them are prolific liars and thieving criminals. What matters is what they do. How could you not know this?

I don't claim to like dems. You're just making your own assumptions.

Okay then recognize that Ds are very much like Rs. So condemning Rs as you did in this thread and not also Ds, makes little sense.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

If you were to actually speak or actually listen to a conservative, they would tell you that, first and foremost, the duty of the government is to protect its citizens.

So they will always push for as much military spending as possible. Try to get them to take a dollar out of the military budget and you'll have a big ol' fight, unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who isn't crazed by their partisan ideology knows this.

I wonder why it's so important for you to be a troll. You try so dang hard.

.

What is a troll to you? Is PoliticalChic a troll?

Sure. People who are more interested in flinging poo than in civil discourse.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Surely you can't be attempting to stimulate civil discourse with your behavior, so it must be the poo thing.

It's probably safe to surmise, then, that you'd prefer to make divisions even worse, and I wonder why.

Your call, I was just curious. I'm fascinated by the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues.

.

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

Which is what makes you a moronic, partisan ideologue.

 

[Billy000]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

Or it is because it is their constitutional obligation to provide for defense.

That said you could have a done a lot better, but you're a tier 11 intellectual so you're forgiven. Carry on with your 'tardation.

It's in the constitution to spend near 2 trillion a year?

 

[gipper]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

If you were to actually speak or actually listen to a conservative, they would tell you that, first and foremost, the duty of the government is to protect its citizens.

So they will always push for as much military spending as possible. Try to get them to take a dollar out of the military budget and you'll have a big ol' fight, unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who isn't crazed by their partisan ideology knows this.

I wonder why it's so important for you to be a troll. You try so dang hard.

.

What is a troll to you? Is PoliticalChic a troll?

Sure. People who are more interested in flinging poo than in civil discourse.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Surely you can't be attempting to stimulate civil discourse with your behavior, so it must be the poo thing.

It's probably safe to surmise, then, that you'd prefer to make divisions even worse, and I wonder why.

Your call, I was just curious. I'm fascinated by the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues.

.

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

Or it is because it is their constitutional obligation to provide for defense.

That said you could have a done a lot better, but you're a tier 11 intellectual so you're forgiven. Carry on with your 'tardation.

It's in the constitution to spend near 2 trillion a year?

Is it in the constitution to spend trillions on welfare and social programs? Nope!

So, what was your point again, Billy? Did you have one or were you just trying to look like a moron? If the latter, congratulations! You've done it!

 

[Billy000]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

If you were to actually speak or actually listen to a conservative, they would tell you that, first and foremost, the duty of the government is to protect its citizens.

So they will always push for as much military spending as possible. Try to get them to take a dollar out of the military budget and you'll have a big ol' fight, unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who isn't crazed by their partisan ideology knows this.

I wonder why it's so important for you to be a troll. You try so dang hard.

.

What is a troll to you? Is PoliticalChic a troll?

Sure. People who are more interested in flinging poo than in civil discourse.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Surely you can't be attempting to stimulate civil discourse with your behavior, so it must be the poo thing.

It's probably safe to surmise, then, that you'd prefer to make divisions even worse, and I wonder why.

Your call, I was just curious. I'm fascinated by the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues.

.

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

Dems are evil but they at least push policies that make sense. Sure they are corrupt and hypocritical, but I can at least agree with them.

 

[Billy000]

...spending trillions on defense each year?

Oh it's because they are hypocritical scumbags.

Or it is because it is their constitutional obligation to provide for defense.

That said you could have a done a lot better, but you're a tier 11 intellectual so you're forgiven. Carry on with your 'tardation.

It's in the constitution to spend near 2 trillion a year?

Is it in the constitution to spend trillions on welfare and social programs? Nope!

So, what was your point again, Billy? Did you have one or were you just trying to look like a moron? If the latter, congratulations! You've done it!

Why are even talking about welfare? Lol. The point is repubs bitch about socialism and dems do not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If you were to actually speak or actually listen to a conservative, they would tell you that, first and foremost, the duty of the government is to protect its citizens.

So they will always push for as much military spending as possible. Try to get them to take a dollar out of the military budget and you'll have a big ol' fight, unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who isn't crazed by their partisan ideology knows this.

I wonder why it's so important for you to be a troll. You try so dang hard.

.

What is a troll to you? Is PoliticalChic a troll?

Sure. People who are more interested in flinging poo than in civil discourse.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Surely you can't be attempting to stimulate civil discourse with your behavior, so it must be the poo thing.

It's probably safe to surmise, then, that you'd prefer to make divisions even worse, and I wonder why.

Your call, I was just curious. I'm fascinated by the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues.

.

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

Dems are evil but they at least push policies that make sense. Sure they are corrupt and hypocritical, but I can at least agree with them.

So you are good with being a hypocrite too! Nice, man! You're really batting a 1,000 in here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The point is repubs bitch about socialism and dems do not

Perhaps thee dumbest thing I've heard all morning.

 

[Billy000]

What is a troll to you? Is PoliticalChic a troll?

Sure. People who are more interested in flinging poo than in civil discourse.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Surely you can't be attempting to stimulate civil discourse with your behavior, so it must be the poo thing.

It's probably safe to surmise, then, that you'd prefer to make divisions even worse, and I wonder why.

Your call, I was just curious. I'm fascinated by the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues.

.

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

Dems are evil but they at least push policies that make sense. Sure they are corrupt and hypocritical, but I can at least agree with them.

So you are good with being a hypocrite too! Nice, man! You're really batting a 1,000 in here.

How am I bird a hypocrite?

 

[Billy000]

The point is repubs bitch about socialism and dems do not

Perhaps thee dumbest thing I've heard all morning.

Well you never listen to yourself speak though. You should really try it some time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure. People who are more interested in flinging poo than in civil discourse.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Surely you can't be attempting to stimulate civil discourse with your behavior, so it must be the poo thing.

It's probably safe to surmise, then, that you'd prefer to make divisions even worse, and I wonder why.

Your call, I was just curious. I'm fascinated by the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues.

.

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

Dems are evil but they at least push policies that make sense. Sure they are corrupt and hypocritical, but I can at least agree with them.

So you are good with being a hypocrite too! Nice, man! You're really batting a 1,000 in here.

How am I bird a hypocrite?

Well, this thread is seething with hypocrisy to start. You take republicans to task over spending while letting the democrats who off the hook as though they were held hostage by republicans when they voted for the spending.

Then you do not want to talk about the spending levels of democrat pet programs. I'd say that makes you a shoe-in as a full blown hypocrite, Billy.

It's ok though. We know you're not very smart and a complete partisan hack.

 

[Billy000]

I'm asking legitimate questions. I target republicans because, to me, they are the greater of two evils by far.

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

Dems are evil but they at least push policies that make sense. Sure they are corrupt and hypocritical, but I can at least agree with them.

So you are good with being a hypocrite too! Nice, man! You're really batting a 1,000 in here.

How am I bird a hypocrite?

Well, this thread is seething with hypocrisy to start. You take republicans to task over spending while letting the democrats who off the hook as though they were held hostage by republicans when they voted for the spending.

Then you do not want to talk about the spending levels of democrat pet programs. I'd say that makes you a shoe-in as a full blown hypocrite, Billy.

It's ok though. We know you're not very smart and a complete partisan hack.

This isn't hard to figure out. Repubs bitch about over spending and socialism. Dems do not.

Can you comprehend that?

 

[chikenwing]

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

Dems are evil but they at least push policies that make sense. Sure they are corrupt and hypocritical, but I can at least agree with them.

So you are good with being a hypocrite too! Nice, man! You're really batting a 1,000 in here.

How am I bird a hypocrite?

Well, this thread is seething with hypocrisy to start. You take republicans to task over spending while letting the democrats who off the hook as though they were held hostage by republicans when they voted for the spending.

Then you do not want to talk about the spending levels of democrat pet programs. I'd say that makes you a shoe-in as a full blown hypocrite, Billy.

It's ok though. We know you're not very smart and a complete partisan hack.

This isn't hard to figure out. Repubs bitch about over spending and socialism. Dems do not.

Can you comprehend that?

Ya your right Dems never bitch about how much they spend ever.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Didn't Obama pull out if Iraq and try to save money only to be hammered by the right for pulling out (even though Bush signed the deal)?

Oh poor Obama. Yes he did, but he neglected these skeletons in his closet.

On January 13, 2005, a newly minted Senator from Illinois was questioning Condoleeza Rice in her confirmation hearing and was quoted as saying this:

"You know, all of us, I think, are rooting for your success. And I recognize not just yours personally but this administration's success.

I think the notion that we have a very real and present danger in the nihilistic ideologies of radical Islam, I think, most Americans share."

Transcript Day Two of Rice Testimony washingtonpost.com

And this little gem from Obama in 2007:

"Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding - The Boston Globe

The same guy who opposed the war, but chose to vote for funding of the war, and voiced his support for the war effort, is not the same guy you see up there right now.

Problem is, the very people who were looking to destroy radical Islam, were acting as their main recruiters. The invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan on top of an already volatile Israel/Palestine situation and the constant use of "War on Terror" and "al-Qaeda" and vilifying Islam, meant the US was making the situation worse, not better.

Obama is a politicians. He does things you'd expect of a politician. He gets taken in by the right's propaganda massively.
Him saying he supports the troops is because the right will criticise anyone who doesn't "support the troops", he opposes the war but supports the troops still means the Republicans won.

Same with Libya, he bombed Libya because McCain put pressure on him and he was worried he'd lose support if he didnb't act. Typical politician bull, that's all that is. I prefer Obama's bull to Bush's clear disregard for everything in invading Iraq, doesn't mean I support his bull.

 

[gipper]

Wake up! They are both evil.

Your premise that Rs are the greater evil is foolish, when your realize the Ds control much of the media and all of Hollywood and academia.

Dems are evil but they at least push policies that make sense. Sure they are corrupt and hypocritical, but I can at least agree with them.

So you are good with being a hypocrite too! Nice, man! You're really batting a 1,000 in here.

How am I bird a hypocrite?

Well, this thread is seething with hypocrisy to start. You take republicans to task over spending while letting the democrats who off the hook as though they were held hostage by republicans when they voted for the spending.

Then you do not want to talk about the spending levels of democrat pet programs. I'd say that makes you a shoe-in as a full blown hypocrite, Billy.

It's ok though. We know you're not very smart and a complete partisan hack.

This isn't hard to figure out. Repubs bitch about over spending and socialism. Dems do not.

Can you comprehend that?

You are failing to learn.

Rs bitch about spending primarily to appease their base...then they approve the spending.

Have you learned nothing since the 1980s?

 

[FA_Q2]

You idiot.

FY 2014 - $1.022 trillion
FY 2013 - $672 billion
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion
FY 2009 - $253 billion

Democrats while holding majorities in both houses and having a president in the White House ran three straight trillion dollar plus deficits from 2010-12, then this year, picked up where they left off. They chose not to stop spending on defense until the sequester.

Oh and might I add, it is Obama who is recklessly killing innocent civilians with drones. Guess you're the hypocrite here buddy.

Um no you're the moron. Republicans are planning on reversing the defense cuts. That means MORE spending.

Oh and the drone program isn't what socialism is you dumbshit.

And when the Democrats had supermajorities in both houses? They had plenty of chances to make those cuts permanent. What did they do? Hmm? They didn't. The chose to allow the spending. Besides, what does socialism and defense spending have to do with one another?

What a dimwit you are. How can you compare the two?

On that note, should I take your thread as a defense of socialism? If so, there are some far rightists on this board who will enjoy this thread.

Later.

TK the sooner you realize you are not all smart the sooner this board can progress intellectually without you. I never said dems didn't like defense spending. The obvious point is that dems never claimed to be against big socialist spending. Repubs have.

Big gov spending=socialism. This isn't hard to figure out.

Really? You actually think that Socialism IS big government spending? Apparently you have no idea what socialism actually means.


Perhaps you should look at what socialism means and then explain, exactly, how defense is socialism.

 

[FA_Q2]

You idiot.

FY 2014 - $1.022 trillion
FY 2013 - $672 billion
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion
FY 2009 - $253 billion

Democrats while holding majorities in both houses and having a president in the White House ran three straight trillion dollar plus deficits from 2010-12, then this year, picked up where they left off. They chose not to stop spending on defense until the sequester.

Oh and might I add, it is Obama who is recklessly killing innocent civilians with drones. Guess you're the hypocrite here buddy.

Didn't Obama pull out if Iraq and try to save money only to be hammered by the right for pulling out (even though Bush signed the deal)?

No.

He was hammered by the right because his pull out failed to maintain 'gains' in Iraq and led to essentially another civil war.

The details of that can fill a book and there have been many threads devoted to should have/shouldn't have/never should have etc so that discussion really does not belong here but boiling it down to what you just did is rather dishonest.