Whose head will explode first? Tea Party calls for defense cuts...

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/...393-tea-party-activists-bring-on-defense-cuts

I look forward to the sputtering attempts to screech that the Tea Party is nothing but GOP shills.

The Tea Party representative you quoted said that defense spending needed to be evaluated, and that cuts would be based on evaluations.

I somehow doubt they use such precise language when they're talking about cutting social programs or foreign aid.

Which is something that even Democratic politicians claim Raytard.

How is the Tea Party like the Mrs. Potato Head Silly Suitcase?

They both provide endless hours of entertainment!

i was thinking Duplo... a lot like real Lego, but simplified for preschoolers.

Then I found this-



and it just seemed so appropriate.

You don't find the Tea Party entertaining? Humorless you are.

The Tea Party: No better than the Democrats

Yeah, there's a catchy slogn.

I'm a Tea Partier and I've been calling for defense cuts for quite some time. We can start with every dime of military spending that goes towards the War on Drugs and move on from there. Of course I've also called for cutting everything in the Federal Budget.

No, you're a sociopath that gloats over the mass murder of innocent teenagers.

No, I was not inclined to mourn very much for them.

Hey look, a brown clown.

Bobby Jindal?

Cut it all. The military is not a sacred cow.

Geez, I thought a brightly coloured train (with no track), driven by clowns, towing along the (republican) elephant kinda described the TP to a, umm, T.

That it's suited for the pre kindergarten class was just the beginning as it turns out...

Too cerebral or just too surreal?

With all the color and activity in that photo, it's interesting that the only thing Ramen notices is skin tone.

For the rest, too cerebral for some. The others are all offended that we don't take the Tea Party as seriously as they do.

I noticed the elephant was gray.

I'm not opposed to defense budget cuts on the condition that you proportionally reduce the number of obligations and deployments the operating force is expected to meet. That means stuff like getting out of the middle east, closing overseas bases, and moving away from the concept of deployment and towards employment. If you don't savvy what I mean, don't worry. The military types do.

No, no! Remember, the Tea Party isn't for smaller government! They're just rebranded Repubicans! (That's not a typo.)

They can't paaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhsssibly be for what they say they're for! Y'know -- smaller government, less legitimized theft from the taxpayers.

(Of course, that actually makes sense if you insist, as liberals do, that the "party" bit in the name means they're a political party rather than a political movement which draws its name from a play on the "Boston tea party.")

But those are exactly the things we need to do anyway, that would all work out very well.

The US should have a relatively small, highly trained military force, with the very best technology, for defense. Able to carry out a major strike anywhere in the world, against anyone, but not even close to an occupying force. The day of occupying a defeated foe is past, and after WW2 none of our attempts to reconstruct and civilize belligerant nations have met with any success. If there is a direct threat to the US, or an attack on us or our property, then it should be dealt with. What we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is all wrong, though.

People make fun of Bush for his "Mission Accomplished" declaration, but he was right (though it is still highly debatable, in my mind, whether or not that mission should ever have been undertaken in the first place). The mission was accomplished. But it was then followed up by another mission that could never be accomplished which is why we're still there, years later, not getting anywhere.

The same situation prevails in Afghanistan. There, the mission was clearly justified, but it was taken care of fairly soon. We should have left them to their own devices afterwards and, if they attacked us again (or participated in an attack by harboring and protecting those who actually did it, to be more precise), they could be smashed again. Until then, let them be. If radical extremists take over the country, that's their problem, not ours. We don't want them telling us how to run our country, so we shouldn't be trying to tell them how to run theirs.

If we went about our military activities that way, I have no doubt that our military budget could be cut by half, if not more, without endangering the safety of the nation.

No, but I bet it would taste good between two hamburger bun--oh wait I'm gonna stop right there, that went in the completely wrong direction.

Repugnant as it is, military spending performs a useful economic function by providing high tech R&D etc. Cutting it without duplicating that function elsewhere might not be a good idea.

Yeah, who else is gonna lose a Mach 20 aircraft for us?

NASA blew up a lot of rockets in the late 1950's and early 1960's. They went on to land on the Moon and fly the space shuttle.

Shit happens.

That hypersonic 'glider' they were testing is supposedly a kinetic lance, not any sort of new aircraft.

"What? Achmafuckijad is in his summer house right now? Push the button!"

Ten minutes later a big metal arrowhead hits his summer house at about 3.5 miles/second. F=ma. Game Over.

Actually, I noticed its make-up color and thought it was funny that "brown" rhymed with "clown." Where on Earth are you coming from with skin tone?

She's a leftist and leftists are racists at heart. They will always zoom in on skin tone.

That depends on what military spending you cut. The cost of keeping so many personnel overseas does not develop technology, for example.

And high-technology military defense is a necessity in today's world. It's just that America's "Department of Defense" needs to become again a department of defense, instead of a tool for attempting to coerce foreign countries to do things our way. That implies great reductions in personnel, and especially great reductions in overseas deployments, but not great reductions in R&D. In fact, it probably would be better to increase those.

Wow, nice retcon! Took you a while to come up with that, though, didn't it?

Well, both outgoing Secretary of Defense Gates (appointed by Bush, and retained in office by Obama) and incoming Secretary of Defense Panetta (former CIA Director, appointed by Obama) have said that further defense cuts beyond what was already planned would be "disastrous" (Gates opinion) and "out of the question" (Panetta's opinion).

A general belief seems to be that the only realistic cuts in defense spending can come from the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doesn't matter anyway.

No matter what the U.S. does in all likelihood we'll have to fight another expensive war within the next decade.

FTFY