Does Anyone See The Irony Of Dems Suddenly Shilling For The Huge Military–Industrial Complex?


For years decades the left has wailed against the money spent on defense.  The cried about this, they cried about that.  Finally, in a moment of stupidity, Repubs gave the Dems what they demanded, along with a debt ceiling raise.  That’s right, don’t let them lie.  Dems are the ones who insisted on the deep defense budget cuts in the debt ceiling negotiations.  But, the Reparded party fell for a shell game, again, and let the Dims have their way, again. 

Now, after all the grandstanding, all of the mouthing about cutting budgets, all of insane drivel the Dims spewed and was reposted by LSM, they’re wanting to forego the cuts. 

This entry was posted in Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Does Anyone See The Irony Of Dems Suddenly Shilling For The Huge Military–Industrial Complex?

  1. Jim Masterson says:

    I like Ramirez cartoons. I think he has Obama’s likeness down to a tee.

    The problem with this cartoon, is that zero’s actually cutting both wings off of the National Defense airplane.


  2. philjourdan says:

    Money=Power. They do not care what it is spent on, only that they get to decide where it is spent.

  3. kelly liddle says:

    Oh well now some Republicans can be happy. Ron Paul proposed cutting the spending to 2006 levels and he was seen as a nutter. Now there is bi-partisan agreement to go for broke.

    There will be 4 industries left in the US in 50 years time at this rate. Defense, Health, Education and Farming to feed the people via food stamps. Starting to sound like a real socialist country. Lots of healthy smart people with guns and rations.

    • philjourdan says:

      Ron Paul had a lot of other “nutter” views besides defense cuts. His whole foreign policy was based on isolationism. A policy that did not work 70-100 years ago, and will not work today (as 9-11 demonstrated).

    • kelly liddle says:

      Then you must think that you have a lot of nutters in your intelligence community also.

      You must remember that US bases in the Holy Land preceded September 11 and most of the bombers were from the Holy Land. Do you see this as some sort of coincidence?

      • philjourdan says:

        Kelly, I used the word “nutter” in quotes as that was your term, not mine. Indeed, I did not (nor do I) necessarily say that any of his ideas are “nutter”. I did make clear I thought he was wrong with some. And I still do.

        And last I checked, there are no bases in Israel or Mecca, so no, the US has no bases in any “Holy Land”. We did have some bases in the Middle East. Can you direct me to where the bases for Spain, Germany and the UK in the Middle East are over the past 10 years? I think my map is deficient in that they do not list any, but since all were targets of the same NUTTERS (yes, I used that term to describe Al Qaeda) as we were, your logic is they MUST be there – why else would they be attacked?

      • kelly liddle says:

        Holy Land refers to Saudi Arabia. It was also a reason given by Osama. Spain and UK were internal issues carried out by home grown citizens. I don’t think Ron Paul is a nutter although many people do. Every single attack should be looked at in isolation. I have had people continuously talk about the terrorists in South Thailand and how it is a muslim thing. While they are muslim there are plenty of muslims elsewhere in Thailand who have done nothing.

        • philjourdan says:

          Both the UK and Spain were carried out at the direction of Al Qaeda. Who they got is immaterial. It was under the direction of the terrorists. Johnny Bin Walker is a home grown person, but no less a terrorist than any of the 19 that flew the planes on 9-11. You are confusing an internal issue (say Basque separatists) with an international terror organization that has but one excuse for murder and mayhem – you are not them (they even kill Muslims so you are not safe if you are a muslim either).

        • cdquarles says:

          What’s holy about Saudi Arabia? /sarc

        • DirkH says:

          kelly liddle says:
          February 7, 2013 at 11:26 am
          “While they are muslim there are plenty of muslims elsewhere in Thailand who have done nothing.”

          The usual suicidal ignorance of the leftist urbanite.
          The Muslim ideology states that you can never be sure whether you make it to paradise. With one exception: Dieing as a martyr in the Jihad against infidels.
          This is the reason why previously perfectly “adapted” Muslims in Western countries suddenly develop the urge to kill infidels.
          The best deterrent would be to spray them with pig fat. The Muslim ideology rules out that anyone reeking of pork makes it to paradise.

          It is all perfectly illogical but that’s how they roll.

  4. gator69 says:

    What happens when democrats are “in charge”…

    “Panetta said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.”

    “We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton,” Panetta responded.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s