I can because he's investing in more green technologies and mass transit. For that alone it softens the blow for me.

And do I need to fly down there and help you start a business in order for you to stop lurking in the Dem thread?

Yes! Get down here!

Go back and read my edit

you surprised me

You cannot sit there with a straight face and say that Obama's spending binge is "better" then GWB's spending binge. Obama's is just beginning.

And all these campaign appearances by the Messiah were pretty much the equivalent of the "tea parties". But let's not ruin a good chance to bash right-leaning Americans.

(more accurately, a reorganization and slowdown in spending)

But to your points, what if a Republican president asked for the same cuts

He proposed cutting $7 billion from the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which the Reagan White House "oversold" as a fool-proof missile shield. 'S.D.I. is alive and well," he added. ''But like everything else... it's got to fit into a reduced budget.''

The purchase of stealth bombers should also be put off, since ''there are a lot of technical problems with it and it is extremely expensive,'' He said at the time. Competing plans for mobile nuclear missiles should be combined, and reduced. 8,000 troops should be cut from the Army; the Navy should drop a carrier battle group; development of a new version of the F-14 jet should be scrapped; a purchase of 500 F-15s should be canceled; old destroyers should be retired; and so on.

"At a time of war, you cannot gut the military..."

But to your points, what if a Republican president asked for the same cuts?

And honestly Balta, the 4% increase in the DOD budget is kind of funny because Obama is asking more for Iraq then GWB ever did. WOAH!

He'd probably get a much, much, much better response, because everyone knows the Democrats hate the military.

I don't even know where that comes from, it's such a lame ass stereotype. Other than something I posted about 2 or 3 weeks ago about Obama trying some weak ass budget-cutting measure for charging combat injuries to vets' private health insurance, I can't think of anything Obama's done to give him this "anti-military" image. He mostly does all the same things Bush did for the military, except support the actual war. Anti-war =/= anti-military.

I don't even know where that comes from, it's such a lame ass stereotype. Other than something I posted about 2 or 3 weeks ago about Obama trying some weak ass budget-cutting measure for charging combat injuries to vets' private health insurance, I can't think of anything Obama's done to give him this "anti-military" image. He mostly does all the same things Bush did for the military, except support the actual war. Anti-war =/= anti-military.

I think the reason it's so stereotyped is John Kerry (our troops are raping in the middle of the night), John Murtha (our troops kill people for no reason), Harry Reid (the war is lost). I think that's enough.

That's really "supporting the troops".

To make this clear, Obama NEVER said these things - but his party did.

So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

It comes from Clinton scaling back military spending from Reagan/ Bush, too, right?

So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

Somalia was done really badly though, and I don't think the Dems were being "tough" by staying - they were creating the illusion of tough while accomplishing nothing and jeopardizing the lives of soldiers.

Kind of like Bush/GOP (and some Dems) and Iraq, but on a smaller scale.

Actually almost all of the military budget cuts were done by the Bush administration following the end of the Cold War.

I would have said this before you but I actually checked and the numbers just don't agree with you. Relative to every other standard of spending (compared to the GDP, compared to discretionary spending, etc.) the share going to the military slowly decreased year over year during the Clinton administration. I'm sure it went up in total dollars, but relative to inflation I doubt it did. It started going back up in 2001.

So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

I know, I know, Republicans are assholes, no matter what way you want to cut it.

This is of course, not the point of the discussion at all, and it adds absolutely nothing to it.

I think it's fair to say that you can come down on any side of an arguement, no matter the point of view, and be "right". For me, though, some things are absolutes. Kerry, Murtha, Reid, that s*** is blatent disrespect of our military. But it must be ok, if Republicans trash them too, right? I just get sick of it.

It comes from Clinton scaling back military spending from Reagan/ Bush, too, right?

I think the reason it's so stereotyped is John Kerry (our troops are raping in the middle of the night), John Murtha (our troops kill people for no reason), Harry Reid (the war is lost). I think that's enough.

That's really "supporting the troops".

To make this clear, Obama NEVER said these things - but his party did.

In this case, the specific discussion topic is why exactly the "Democrats are weak on the military" meme is so solid. The point you made was that you feel their statements are blatant disrespect of the military. Therefore, I contend if we're doing a comparison of statements, having Republicans in 1993 saying ""It's Vietnam all over again" (Fritz Hollings) is 100% germane to the discussion. Either it's on you to explain to me why the statements by the Democrats (I may grant you Murtha given how the investigation turned out) are significantly worse than those of the Republicans under similar circumstances, or I have defeated your point and it's time to look for another reason why the idea has taken hold.

How a discussion does not work is...you prevent an opinion with evidence backing it, you're presented with counter-evidence from the other side, you throw up your hands and say "I'm sick of it". It really doesn't get us anywhere and it doesn't provide me with any edification about the issue.

Now, given this, are liberal media figures, pundits, bloggers, and talk-show hosts likely to throw a complete fit? It seems unlikely, for one simple reason: I don't think DHS is referring to liberal media figures, pundits, bloggers, and talk-show hosts.

It's what struck me as so strange yesterday. When DHS raised concerns about radical right-wing extremists who might commit acts of violence, Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, and others immediately thought, "Wait, maybe they're talking about us!"

With DHS also concerned about "left-wing extremists," it seems mainstream liberals aren't especially concerned about being lumped in with a violent fringe.

I'll take your side. How about Bosnia in 1998? How about a few lobbed missles at Iraq during the same time? Wag the Dog...

You're right. But, I think the stakes are a lot different.

The evil, obsessed with spying on the Republicans DHS which has spent all their time finding ways to disrupt the right wing also prepared a similar report on left wing protesters.

Stealing a thought from Steve Benen:

I think the reason it's so stereotyped is John Kerry (our troops are raping in the middle of the night), John Murtha (our troops kill people for no reason), Harry Reid (the war is lost). I think that's enough.

That's really "supporting the troops".

To make this clear, Obama NEVER said these things - but his party did.

At the 2004 RNC, delegates wore purple band-aids to diminish the Purple Heart award earned by Kerry. True, it was meant to diminish only Kerry's service, but the military awards wounded troops Purple Hearts. That is real support.

President Obama Ordered the Killing of Three Black Muslim Kids
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5110.guest.html

rofl, obviously he is being sarcastic, but come on now.

I know. It's always different, but then again, it wasn't a possible commander in chief lying his ass off about the troops trying to get elected because it was "popular" at the time, either. Perhaps when John Kerry comes up I'll wear a purple band aid on my ass, too. Pucker up!

Again, I understand trashing Kerry, but why tarnish the Purple Heart? Why not go after the military for awarding Kerry? There are two ways it should go down when dealing with a decorated war veteran who you despise:
1. Criticize that person's offensive views/gaffes/speeches/etc.
2. Criticize the military for awarding that person (Kerry) who ostensibly does not deserve a Purple Heart, but a band-aid.

"You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. (...) As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure you are outside the predicate death requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death."

OLC memo of August 1, 2002, signed by Jay Bybee.

"'You asked me once,' said O'Brien, 'what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.'

"The door opened again. A guard came in, carrying something made of wire, a box or basket of some kind. He set it down on the further table. Because of the position in which O'Brien was standing. Winston could not see what the thing was.

'The worst thing in the world,' said O'Brien, 'varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal.'

He had moved a little to one side, so that Winston had a better view of the thing on the table. It was an oblong wire cage with a handle on top for carrying it by. Fixed to the front of it was something that looked like a fencing mask, with the concave side outwards. Although it was three or four metres away from him, he could see that the cage was divided lengthways into two compartments, and that there was some kind of creature in each. They were rats.

'In your case,' said O'Brien, 'the worst thing in the world happens to be rats.'"
George Orwell, 1984

f*** Abu Zubaydah though.

No, no... he has American rights...

I'll say it, and I mean it. f***tards like this have NO rights. You lose your right to "humanity" when you vow to kill thousands of innocent people. Period. You save lives by pouring water over his face or putting a cockroach in with him, I don't give a s***, and neither do most Americans given the choice. He lost his rights and liberty when he decided to mastermind a bunch of asshole zealots to kill a bunch of innocent people.

*whiney* oh we're better then that... please.

You have to prove that he's guilty but I seriously would love to beat the s*** out of him.

I think your guys' defense of this is absolutely sickening, and that's all I have to say about that.

I think your guys' defense of this is absolutely sickening, and that's all I have to say about that.

No, no... he has American rights...

I'll say it, and I mean it. f***tards like this have NO rights. You lose your right to "humanity" when you vow to kill thousands of innocent people. Period. You save lives by pouring water over his face or putting a cockroach in with him, I don't give a s***, and neither do most Americans given the choice. He lost his rights and liberty when he decided to mastermind a bunch of asshole zealots to kill a bunch of innocent people.

*whiney* oh we're better then that... please.

Couldn't agree more with this post. People like him deserve everything that they get.