Comments on: Obama Wants Pentagon Budget Cut 10%

By: ThinkingMeat · The non-existent defense “cut”

ThinkingMeat · The non-existent defense “cut” — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:57:01 +0000

[...] like wingnuts like Porter Good, “Emperor” Misha, Big Dog, Amy Proctor, Mike, and Jeff Burhans will just have to find [...]

By: Is Obama Going To Increase Defense Budget By 8%? » Pirate’s Cove — Shiny!

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:33:53 +0000

[...] few days ago, I mentioned a story originating from Fox News that Obama requested the Pentagon decrease their budget by a bit over [...]

By: darthcrUSAderworldtour2007

darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:48:13 +0000

Our forefathers would have HUNG the treasonous scumbags in power today in Washington DC CCCP! Love the U.S. Military Urinals / Tribunals at GITMO too? “Want some more rice pilaf and bottled water Ahab El Kaboom?” – Paper Tigers 2009

By: riggword

riggword — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:33:21 +0000

One of many good posts on this subject.

None of us who have been blogging on Barack Obama’s liberal anti-American agenda for the last year are surprised about his actions since taking over the Presidency.

Weakening American and strengthening his power are what we expected. He will increase his hold on the American economy, the White House, the Congress, and the weak-kneed American public.

Keep blogging the truth, it will be a long time before America wakes up to the Obama mess.

Thanks for the space,
riggword

By: Obama, how ’bout stimulating the Military? « Riggword Weblog

Obama, how ’bout stimulating the Military? « Riggword Weblog — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:07:23 +0000

[...] From Pirate’s Cove: Certainly, Obamabi has targeted Star Wars and other missile defense programs during his campaign, but, Director Blue has a breakdown of comparing the $55 billion cut to protecting the United States, which, if memory serves, is actually in the Constitution and the Presidential Oath of Office, to the what is in the Porkulus Package Obama is pushing. [...]

By: moonbatmatt

moonbatmatt — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:34:34 +0000

Obama could propose (congress sets the levels of spending in this country not the president)cuts to the defense budget of 20% and not even come close to touching the overages, fluff, pork, un-needed weapons systems,and outright fraud associated with defense spending. Even a 50% would mean that we spend only as much as the rest of the world combined. How many nuclear subs or aircraft carriers do we need to defeat ragtag, country less, fanatic nuts like Al-Quida? Even quasi-dangerous countries like Iran would be a to snap defeat militarily. Its the occupation and nation building skills that our military does not have nor should ever have that we need to work on. That is a matter for civilians. How do you bomb people into democracy and social change?

By: darthcrUSAderworldtour2007

darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:56:57 +0000

Obambi is putty in Osama bin Laden’s hands! – Obama Been Lyin 2009
John Ryan loves using his “What are you afraid of ?” logic? What irritates my Death Star II crew are hygienically challenged flower power weeds that say, “Hey buddy, can you spare a dime? make that a few house payments? Better yet, some soap!”

By: William Teach

William Teach — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:49:05 +0000

That’s a bit of a nit pick, Silke (no biggie on the bold.) The point is that Obama plans to cut the defense budget.

And what Duncan wrote.

John, are you insinuating that we have done something that causes people like the Islamists to attack us?

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:52:08 +0000

Teach why is it that even though the United States spends far more than any other country on defense, we are the most afraid ? Why aren’t countries like ireland or Ecuador or Kenya terrified of the muslims ? or the Chinese or the whomever ? Why are we the most afraid ? Teach if men and women no longer wish to serve in our armed forces they have every right not to for whatever reasons they may wish to have.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:21:27 +0000

Well, Congress has to write and pass the actual law repealing the “policy”, and the President has to sign it, so in a sense, he has to agree with it and work with Congress to repeal it, which he says he wants to.

And I think you are playing a semantics game here. The U.S. Constitution is what the oath says will be defended and preserved, true. But how does not defending the people of this nation, not protecting the sovereign territory of the U.S., defend or preserve the founding document that binds this union together again? Is there some sort of lawyerly disconnect that allows you to even nit-pick this? Are you saying that by taking the oath of office, our executives aren’t actually pledging to defend the U.S., just the piece of parchment that holds the founding rules?