Report: McCain a ‘Hero’ to Taxpayers

[almaty 19]

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

gary, did we win? i cannot remember,

it was a waste of usa funding

[Peikko 1,575]

Bingo!

An overly simplistic cartoon to explain something in a slanted way. Let me add a few more facts to that.

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

Bush one years: Gulf war 1

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Bush II years: 9/11, war on terror.

Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

Gary, a cartoon is a cartoon. It's meant to be an oversimplification in case you had forgotten.

Now, I can see that you view the military as the most significant thing that the US gov does, which is fine but you still have to find a way to pay for it. Deficits are debt and debt is normally not a good thing. Although, sometimes...

Anyway, your response to the cartoon is equally simplistic - if I may make so bold

[IAMX 3,055]

Quick, Gary, find the easiest post to retort and ignore the ones that offer tough criticism of your Republican spin/cheerleading!

[HAL 9000 96]

Bingo!

An overly simplistic cartoon to explain something in a slanted way. Let me add a few more facts to that.

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

Bush one years: Gulf war 1

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Bush II years: 9/11, war on terror.

Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

Gary, a cartoon is a cartoon. It's meant to be an oversimplification in case you had forgotten.

Now, I can see that you view the military as the most significant thing that the US gov does, which is fine but you still have to find a way to pay for it. Deficits are debt and debt is normally not a good thing. Although, sometimes...

Anyway, your response to the cartoon is equally simplistic - if I may make so bold

Well he did say he was 'adding a few more facts'...

Must be one of those equally 'silly' knee jerks again to make someone out there (who?) laugh.

[GaryC 7]

Bingo!

An overly simplistic cartoon to explain something in a slanted way. Let me add a few more facts to that.

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

Bush one years: Gulf war 1

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Bush II years: 9/11, war on terror.

Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

We fought them militarily?

There is one thing that is emerging in that one post... Gary implies Republicans like war.

Wasn't it that the Soviets crashed their own party?

No, they broke themselves trying to keep up. The result is the same, we won the cold war.

Bingo!

An overly simplistic cartoon to explain something in a slanted way. Let me add a few more facts to that.

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

Bush one years: Gulf war 1

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Bush II years: 9/11, war on terror.

Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

Gary, a cartoon is a cartoon. It's meant to be an oversimplification in case you had forgotten.

Now, I can see that you view the military as the most significant thing that the US gov does, which is fine but you still have to find a way to pay for it. Deficits are debt and debt is normally not a good thing. Although, sometimes...

Anyway, your response to the cartoon is equally simplistic - if I may make so bold

Well he did say he was 'adding a few more facts'...

Must be one of those equally 'silly' knee jerks again to make someone out there (who?) laugh.

Wasn't it you that said facts taken out of context can be made to say whatever you want? Leaving out the rest of the world and just focusing on "who was in office" is doing just that.

[HAL 9000 96]

Bingo!

An overly simplistic cartoon to explain something in a slanted way. Let me add a few more facts to that.

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

Bush one years: Gulf war 1

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Bush II years: 9/11, war on terror.

Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

We fought them militarily?

There is one thing that is emerging in that one post... Gary implies Republicans like war.

Wasn't it that the Soviets crashed their own party?

No, they broke themselves trying to keep up. The result is the same, we won the cold war.

Bingo!

An overly simplistic cartoon to explain something in a slanted way. Let me add a few more facts to that.

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

Bush one years: Gulf war 1

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Bush II years: 9/11, war on terror.

Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

Gary, a cartoon is a cartoon. It's meant to be an oversimplification in case you had forgotten.

Now, I can see that you view the military as the most significant thing that the US gov does, which is fine but you still have to find a way to pay for it. Deficits are debt and debt is normally not a good thing. Although, sometimes...

Anyway, your response to the cartoon is equally simplistic - if I may make so bold

Well he did say he was 'adding a few more facts'...

Must be one of those equally 'silly' knee jerks again to make someone out there (who?) laugh.

Wasn't it you that said facts taken out of context can be made to say whatever you want? Leaving out the rest of the world and just focusing on "who was in office" is doing just that.

Ahhh I see... Attrition again. Awfully bizarre way of going about a rivalry as ridiculous as the Cold War.

Or perhaps not. Silliness is what it is.

And yes... context is everything. Good. Unfortunately its only applicable as long as the 'world' favors Coalitions that hardly exist. That still costs us the same, anyway.

[Mrs.J06 4]

"we on the cold war"?

Riiiight, just like we are winning the war on terror, correct?

Gary, does that mean if we wait long enough Iran will go broke trying to keep up with the US? Then why oh why do you think we should bomb them so urgently?

Oh wait, because they won't run out of money because they have - you guessed it - OIL...

So maybe by going green the US could win here? But then again, that's the Dem's ideal, can't have that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bingo!

An overly simplistic cartoon to explain something in a slanted way. Let me add a few more facts to that.

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

Bush one years: Gulf war 1

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Bush II years: 9/11, war on terror.

Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

What is cheap, though, are your excuses for the blatant fiscal irresponsibility of the borrow-and-spend-and-let-our-children-and-their-children-worry-about-paying-for-our-excesses party.

Take the cost of the Persian Gulf War, for example. That war effort of 1990/91 cost a whopping $60,000,000,000.00 and, as such, perhaps explains away about one fifth of the 300,000,000,000.00 deficit, my friend. Of course, a fiscally responsible leader would have sought to properly fund the effort. Either way, where did the other 240,000,000,000.00 get wasted?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[rclouse 0]

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Excuse me? You're referring to the same President Clinton who actually attacked Osama Bin Laden? And was criticized by Republicans for ordering the strike to take attention away from Lewinsky?

[GaryC 7]

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Excuse me? You're referring to the same President Clinton who actually attacked Osama Bin Laden? And was criticized by Republicans for ordering the strike to take attention away from Lewinsky?

You mean the bombing of an empty camp on the very night he was lying to the courts? If that counts as taking action then you should love Obama.

[IAMX 3,055]

Clinton years: letting the military go while ignoring major threats.

Excuse me? You're referring to the same President Clinton who actually attacked Osama Bin Laden? And was criticized by Republicans for ordering the strike to take attention away from Lewinsky?

Wow, what a retarded post. How are you supposed to climax if you take attention away from Ms. Lewinsky? Republicans just wanted in on the action too. Clinton, being the worst President ever, didn't share.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

gary, did we win? i cannot remember,

it was a waste of usa funding

it woulda been a greater waste if we'd lost.

[GaryC 7]

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

gary, did we win? i cannot remember,

it was a waste of usa funding

it woulda been a greater waste if we'd lost.

Maybe we should ask some of the members from E. Europe if they think it was worth it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

gary, did we win? i cannot remember,

it was a waste of usa funding

it woulda been a greater waste if we'd lost.

Maybe we should ask some of the members from E. Europe if they think it was worth it.

The Soviet Empire was on it's way down the drain as it was. Now I'll admit that I was cheering when Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin called on Mr. Gorbatschew to open the Gate and tear down the Wall. It was quite an intense moment.

But then again, the cracks were long showing at that time. Mr. Gorbatschew was the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire. That may not be what you want to hear but having been very close to the action, I'd tell you that's what it was.

Reagan may have sped up the process of the empire's decline but he didn't bring it down.

[GaryC 7]

Reagan years: building up our military to defeate the soviets.

gary, did we win? i cannot remember,

it was a waste of usa funding

it woulda been a greater waste if we'd lost.

Maybe we should ask some of the members from E. Europe if they think it was worth it.

The Soviet Empire was on it's way down the drain as it was. Now I'll admit that I was cheering when Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin called on Mr. Gorbatschew to open the Gate and tear down the Wall. It was quite an intense moment.

But then again, the cracks were long showing at that time. Mr. Gorbatschew was the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire. That may not be what you want to hear but having been very close to the action, I'd tell you that's what it was.

Reagan may have sped up the process of the empire's decline but he didn't bring it down.

No, it's totaly fair. You lived through it so I wouldn't try to tell you differently. I was countering the idea that we didn't win the cold war or if we did it wasn't worth it. The world is a much better place without the USSR.