Conquer Club

So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

The Tea Party has one unified stance? Well, this is breaking news, sir! Crack out the champagne!

I'm all for diminishing the number of bases we have around the world. I also hate how the president and Congress keep bickering back and forth about which planes and ships we need to build based on which jurisdiction makes those assets. And how there was a report just today or yesterday about how the latest plane order has come in hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. That money needs to stop being wasted.

Unlike people like Ron Paul, I do believe a strong US military is the only military capable of preserving world peace and stability. Without a strong military, either China will overrun the world, or Muslim Terrorists would throw it into utter chaos. That's one reason why I wouldn't vote for him.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The Tea Party has one unified stance? Well, this is breaking news, sir! Crack out the champagne!

According to Phatscotty, all they're concerned about is cutting spending and drug testing welfare recipients.

So did you have an actual response, or just want to snark? I'm obviously speaking of the "Tea Partiers" that are in Congress.

Night Strike wrote:I'm all for diminishing the number of bases we have around the world. I also hate how the president and Congress keep bickering back and forth about which planes and ships we need to build based on which jurisdiction makes those assets. And how there was a report just today or yesterday about how the latest plane order has come in hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. That money needs to stop being wasted.

Unlike people like Ron Paul, I do believe a strong US military is the only military capable of preserving world peace and stability. Without a strong military, either China will overrun the world, or Muslim Terrorists would throw it into utter chaos. That's one reason why I wouldn't vote for him.

I believe very much in a strong US military also, for what should be obvious reasons. By the same token, I well recognize the vast amount of savings that can be found in the military without damaging that role.

Night Strike wrote:Unlike people like Ron Paul, I do believe a strong US military is the only military capable of preserving world peace and stability. Without a strong military, either China will overrun the world, or Muslim Terrorists would throw it into utter chaos. That's one reason why I wouldn't vote for him.

1) China couldn't overrun the world; you're overestimating the capabilities of their military (plus there's many more reasons).

2) "Muslim Terrorism" is broadly defined and occurs for many different reasons--in many cases, regardless of the size of the US military. "Utter chaos"? Seriously? As if other countries don't have a vested interest in preventing terrorist attacks within their own borders or near them...


The US military on foreign soil substitutes the US allies' need to pay for their own military (or expand their own military) in order to secure their own interests. Without an international US military, the former parasites will have the incentive to develop their own armed forces, thus preventing your chaos-terrorism account and that lovely bit about China.

Damn, and I thought this was going to be something about Tea Party Death Squads...

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

original tea party members who support ron paul's politics are in favor of cutting military spending. check out paul's platform, seriously. he's way different from the sarah palin tea party.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US military on foreign soil substitutes the US allies' need to pay for their own military (or expand their own military) in order to secure their own interests. Without an international US military, the former parasites will have the incentive to develop their own armed forces, thus preventing your chaos-terrorism account and that lovely bit about China.

I agree with BBS, however, promoting military co-dependency by keeping the puppet states weak also serves U.S. foreign policy.

The U.S. maintains a military of current size not as a defence force but as a force of tax collectors. The U.S. is unique in the world for imposing a system of global taxation.

Nations are not dull to the fact that bonds they get in return for the $1.5 trillion they hand over to the U.S. every year to pay for Lawrence Welk museums and empty wheat fields in Iowa are just worthless pieces of paper that will never be repaid. They allow themselves to be taxed in this way because they are on the receiving end of a protection racket. Protection rackets only exist if you have muscle to enforce them.

A prime example is the U.S.' fleet of 20 aircraft carriers (on paper the USN claims 11 because of their creative bookkeeping in calling their light aircraft carriers "amphibious assault ships") while the next largest country has 2. The USAF's expeditionary air arms are 10x more effective but don't have the dramatic flair of sailing into Tokyo harbour when Nancy Pelosi needs some quick cash to build an Institute for the Study of Transgender Handjobs in the Tenderloin.

Here's a good 90-second video of the U.S. asking Poland to join NATO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpm44S1aePw

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

original tea party members who support ron paul's politics are in favor of cutting military spending. check out paul's platform, seriously. he's way different from the sarah palin tea party.

Yes, I agree with all of this. I am, however, referring to the non-Ron Pauls in our current Congress.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US military on foreign soil substitutes the US allies' need to pay for their own military (or expand their own military) in order to secure their own interests. Without an international US military, the former parasites will have the incentive to develop their own armed forces, thus preventing your chaos-terrorism account and that lovely bit about China.

I agree with BBS, however, promoting military co-dependency by keeping the puppet states weak also serves U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011711121720939655.html

The political description of Tea partier is just about the most useless political term in political history. Anyone and their pet gerbil can be a goddamn tea partyier. The only pre-requisite seems to be being able to say "I'm a tea-partier" Bonus points if you have a circle of friends who meets at the local fast food joint to bitch about politics. At this I think I'll just jump on the band wagon. I too am a Tea partier. I also beleive the tax payer is taxed enough already. Income taxes should be abolished in their place all US farms should be collectivized by the state, the revenue generate by these state farms should make up for the lost income taxes, if that's not enough lets just nationalize beer. There I got rid of income taxes and have reduced the deficit through market gumption! I'm the best tea partier ever!

Baron Von PWN wrote:The political description of Tea partier is just about the most useless political term in political history. Anyone and their pet gerbil can be a goddamn tea partyier. The only pre-requisite seems to be being able to say "I'm a tea-partier" Bonus points if you have a circle of friends who meets at the local fast food joint to bitch about politics. At this I think I'll just jump on the band wagon. I too am a Tea partier. I also beleive the tax payer is taxed enough already. Income taxes should be abolished in their place all US farms should be collectivized by the state, the revenue generate by these state farms should make up for the lost income taxes, if that's not enough lets just nationalize beer. There I got rid of income taxes and have reduced the deficit through market gumption! I'm the best tea partier ever!

The correct answer.

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

The incorrect answer.

Boehner, Marco Woodrow Wilson Rubio, and their ilk aren't for cutting spending; they are for cutting spending that doesn't hinder their political donors.

In any event, have at it with Phatscotty and Night Strike... I will attempt to enjoy seeing them argue why we need military bases in Germany and South Korea to protect our national defense.

I think military spending should be cut. (and this is coming from the son of a retired US Army officer). We spend billions designing weapons like laser guided bombs because we "respect civilians" during war. I think this is quite an oxymoron. Either you respect life, or you go to war. I am all for war, but not using missiles that cost a million a piece. Bullets and carpet bombing are much more inexpensive and will have better results (less people to combat us). Plus killing women and children will reduce other's carbon footprint so Greenpiece should be on board with me too

thegreekdog wrote:In any event, have at it with Phatscotty and Night Strike... I will attempt to enjoy seeing them argue why we need military bases in Germany and South Korea to protect our national defense.

Third post of the thread I clearly said I wouldn't mind closing some of our international bases. However, I do think the two you listed are important. Germany because it is our massive military hospital where our injured troops first go when they leave the current war theaters while South Korea is important due to the constants threat from North Korea. We could probably close the base in Japan (or maybe the South Korea one and keep Japan open) as one that is probably no longer needed.

Night Strike, please expand on your point on North Korea being a threat, and why South Korea and Japan cannot defend themselves.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In any event, have at it with Phatscotty and Night Strike... I will attempt to enjoy seeing them argue why we need military bases in Germany and South Korea to protect our national defense.

Third post of the thread I clearly said I wouldn't mind closing some of our international bases. However, I do think the two you listed are important. Germany because it is our massive military hospital where our injured troops first go when they leave the current war theaters while South Korea is important due to the constants threat from North Korea. We could probably close the base in Japan (or maybe the South Korea one and keep Japan open) as one that is probably no longer needed.

There isn't "one" base in Japan and South Korea. Heck, there's more than one Air Force base in Japan, never mind Army and Navy. And Germany's got Army posts spread throughout the country. You can literally get lost almost anywhere in the country and find your way to a close Army base.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In any event, have at it with Phatscotty and Night Strike... I will attempt to enjoy seeing them argue why we need military bases in Germany and South Korea to protect our national defense.

Third post of the thread I clearly said I wouldn't mind closing some of our international bases. However, I do think the two you listed are important. Germany because it is our massive military hospital where our injured troops first go when they leave the current war theaters while South Korea is important due to the constants threat from North Korea. We could probably close the base in Japan (or maybe the South Korea one and keep Japan open) as one that is probably no longer needed.

There isn't "one" base in Japan and South Korea. Heck, there's more than one Air Force base in Japan, never mind Army and Navy. And Germany's got Army posts spread throughout the country. You can literally get lost almost anywhere in the country and find your way to a close Army base.

Fair enough. I know that most of the majorly wounded in combat go to at least one of the bases in Germany and I know that I had an uncle stationed at one of the bases in Japan. If there are as many bases in each country as you say, then I'm sure many could be closed. And I would support closing many of them.

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

IDK what you are talking about, or how you come to the assumption the Tea Party is against cutting military spending.

Military needs to be cut. Everything needs to be cut. What part of everything do you fail to understand the last 100 times I said as much? Oh, not enough to stop Woody from creating a thread questioning futher.

Woodruffs attempt to bedazzle the Tea Party fails.

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

original tea party members who support ron paul's politics are in favor of cutting military spending. check out paul's platform, seriously. he's way different from the sarah palin tea party.

I concur. Will only add that even though I am for cutting the military, I still understand the military is the #1 priority for the gov't. We still need to spend a lot on it.

In the latest edition of LEECH OR PUPPY? choose which areas of military spending to cut.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=148685&p=3247821#p3247821

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

IDK what you are talking about, or how you come to the assumption the Tea Party is against cutting military spending.

I don't know how you can avoid that conclusion, by observing those the Tea Party allegedly swept into Congress and how they're reacting to the idea of cutting military spending. Unless you're just closing your eyes to it, which is a distinct probability.

Phatscotty wrote:Military needs to be cut. Everything needs to be cut. What part of everything do you fail to understand the last 100 times I said as much? Oh, not enough to stop Woody from creating a thread questioning futher.
Woodruffs attempt to bedazzle the Tea Party fails.

YOU are not the Tea Party, Phatscotty. What YOU say doesn't change policy at all. What those the Tea Party elected say and what those the Tea Party elected DO FOR POLICY is what matters. You should try paying attention to what they're doing.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?

IDK what you are talking about, or how you come to the assumption the Tea Party is against cutting military spending.

I don't know how you can avoid that conclusion, by observing those the Tea Party allegedly swept into Congress and how they're reacting to the idea of cutting military spending. Unless you're just closing your eyes to it, which is a distinct probability.

Phatscotty wrote:Military needs to be cut. Everything needs to be cut. What part of everything do you fail to understand the last 100 times I said as much? Oh, not enough to stop Woody from creating a thread questioning futher.
Woodruffs attempt to bedazzle the Tea Party fails.

YOU are not the Tea Party, Phatscotty. What YOU say doesn't change policy at all. What those the Tea Party elected say and what those the Tea Party elected DO FOR POLICY is what matters. You should try paying attention to what they're doing.

then why the F are you asking me?

I am part of the Tea Party, along with a millions of Independents and millions of Democrats. I know what I'm talking about, and it's crystal clear you are the one who is far behind the times and in denial of the revolution.


I know my people. I can speak for the majority.

I have seen too many demands and concessions to the repeated comments that the military should be cut, so I reject your observation flat out. Sure, you might have seen one or two people make comments (Jon Mccain? LOL!) but it certainly is not an issue at any of the Tea Parties or any of our sites. Is that a valid way to come to my conclusion?

Can you show me which examples you are talking about as "the Tea Party reacting to the idea of cutting military spending?"

I can safely say the Tea Party position on the issue is we can only afford just over half the money (60%) we are spending, as evidences by the reality that our gov't has to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that is spent. Everything is going to need to be cut somewhat. Nothing is off the table as far as cuts.

Our Credit rating as a country is on downgrade notice. How about you stop fighting against people who are just trying to protect our AAA credit rating? When are you gonna get pissed about debts and overspending? Are you now? Do you understand what a downgrade would mean to me, you, and everyone we know? Do you?

Woodruff, for my own part, anyone that I had the opportunity to help elect in 2010 (one person) will not be voted for by me again when he runs again... precisely because he's a neo-conservative and not a republican (little r).