The Cold War Dinosaur Still Eating Our Wealth

[Rohirrim]

And Romney wants to feed it some more:

Romney has insisted that U.S. exceptionalism compels us to steady alliances, settle regional disputes and forcefully promote democracy everywhere. But he has reversed the idea of U.S. exceptionalism.
Early American leaders thought that the nation's virtue lay in liberal values and the example America sets. For them, U.S. exceptionalism had nothing to do with military adventurism. Permanent allies might drag us into others' disputes, imperiling liberalism by centralizing power in the presidency and requiring a massive military establishment.
Similar worries encouraged President Eisenhower's push to keep our commitments to allies temporary. In 1953, Western Europe and Japan were still recovering from World War II and South Korea, with our help, was still fighting the North and its Chinese allies. U.S. commitments to defend those nations came from fear that the Soviet Union would capitalize on their weakness, through conquest or internal intrigue, and gather enough strength to threaten us directly.
Those allies long ago grew rich enough to defend themselves, and the Soviet Union has been history for decades. The European Union collectively has a population and economy larger than ours. But while Americans spend about $2,700 per capita annually on the military, NATO allies average around $500.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/30/opinion/sapolsky-military-spending/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[pricejj]

...

It's no secret that Americans have been footing the bill for Europe's Defense for quite some time. The simple fact is, Social Democracies can't even pay for the entitlements they grant, let alone defense of their nation.

It's absurd that your article is worried about a President with concentrated powers, without mentioning Obama, "the dictator-in-chief", who has concentrated powers to the Presidency more than any other President in the history of the U.S.

I guess we can look forward to you creating 3 or 4 bogus threads daily leading up to the election, huh?

[Rohirrim]

It's no secret that Americans have been footing the bill for Europe's Defense for quite some time. The simple fact is, Social Democracies can't even pay for the entitlements they grant, let alone defense of their nation.

It's absurd that your article is worried about a President with concentrated powers, without mentioning Obama, "the dictator-in-chief", who has concentrated powers to the Presidency more than any other President in the history of the U.S.

I guess we can look forward to you creating 3 or 4 bogus threads daily leading up to the election, huh?

Don't bother complaining to me about your reading comprehension problems. I'm well aware of them. I'm sure you can find classes that can help you.

[pricejj]

Don't bother complaining to me about your reading comprehension problems. I'm well aware of them. I'm sure you can find classes that can help you.

Like I said, the article is equally as absurd as your fanatic defense of the Obama administration's treasonous acts.

[Rohirrim]

Like I said, the article is equally as absurd as your fanatic defense of the Obama administration's treasonous acts.

I see. You didn't read the article, in other words. It doesn't mention Obama. Neither did I. I'm sorry that the pressure of the election has driven you insane. Hope you can find some help.

[pricejj]

I see. You didn't read the article, in other words. It doesn't mention Obama. Neither did I. I'm sorry that the pressure of the election has driven you insane. Hope you can find some help.

My sanity is quite intact. However, you are free to carry on your charade of attempting to cover-up the neo-liberal agenda, while attributing false accusations to the Romney camp. Obama tried the same tactic in the debates, and failed miserably.

I have never seen someone so feverishly defend the failed policies of a President that they claim to not have voted for.

[Rohirrim]

My sanity is quite intact. However, you are free to carry on your charade of attempting to cover-up the neo-liberal agenda, while attributing false accusations to the Romney camp. Obama tried the same tactic in the debates, and failed miserably.

I have never seen someone so feverishly defend the failed policies of a President that they claim to not have voted for.

That's because you equate attacking the worst candidate for president I've ever seen in Romney, with defending the incumbent. Like I said, hysteria.

BTW, just what is the neo-liberal agenda?

[pricejj]

BTW, just what is the neo-liberal agenda?

That's a good point, because we have yet to see a 2nd term agenda from Obama. However if his 1st term agenda serves any indication, we are in store for more goverment takeovers, a further expansion of the war on terror, higher taxes on everybody, trillion dollar deficits, gender wars, credit downgrades, cover-ups, and eventually....bankruptcy.

[Rohirrim]

That's a good point, because we have yet to see a 2nd term agenda from Obama. However if his 1st term agenda serves any indication, we are in store for more goverment takeovers, a further expansion of the war on terror, higher taxes on everybody, trillion dollar deficits, gender wars, credit downgrades, cover-ups, and eventually....bankruptcy.

Did you hear that Bush policies bankrupted America? It's true. We're in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Weird, huh?

[pricejj]

Did you hear that Bush policies bankrupted America? It's true. We're in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Weird, huh?

Did you hear that Obama and the Democrats overwhelmingly supported the Iraq and Afghanistan war, including continuation, and expansion of the war on terror?

Did you hear that Obama has doubled nations federal deficit?

Did you hear that the recession ended in 2009 due to Obama's unprecedented increase in government borrowing, which boosted GDP?