Going to be out of pocket for a few days, visiting family. Go read the folks on the sidebar!!!

And Ramirez hits another one out of the park!


Zinger!!! — 10 Comments

  1. Hey Old NFO;

    This one is spot on….Safe travels and keep it on the black stuff between the trees.

  2. a) folks advocating for paying for free stuff are potentially MOSS influence assets, and this cartoon does not make that point

    b) I really do think the trade offs are far more nuanced than presented. Funding many defense programs only makes sense with a certain amount of ballot security, and election security. If we are presuming that our hardware is secure, on the grounds that our enemies have not been handed the plans, and many of our working copies, we have to avoid letting thme compromise the plans, and avoid giving them a bunch of working copies. Or from outright doing things like handing over the naval fleet directly to the PRC.

    c) Ramirez, here, is arguing a case that has been very sound, but which does not fit the current circumstances.

    d) This congress was constituted improperly, and as operated is a criminal conspiracy. It should not be spending money on insane boondoggles as it is attempting to do. I) if Republican congressmen are free to act, the correct course of action is to try to screw over everything as a protest. II) If they are not free to act, telling them to prioritize defense spending is utterly pointless. III) Enforce the Magnitsky Act against congress.

    e) Biden regime is obviously a current problem wrt defense funding. Afghanistan.

    f) The problem is quite a bit larger than simply Frau Professor Doktor Edith Biden. In hindsight, the GAO data compromise was a much earlier stage of the problem, and adequate ballot security and adequate election security might have prevented things. It might have also prevented the compromises of the ’90.

    g) The Republicans have been willing to spend on defense, but they have been unwilling to make more than token efforts to provide the necessary prerequisite security. Fundamentally, the GOP has for many years been captured by a faction aligned with the Bushes. The Bush faction would rather lose winnable elections than to have someone outside the faction win an election on behalf of the GOP. A competing faction would erode the influence of the Bush faction.

    i) I favor defense spending. I favor defense programs. They are definitely more important than supporting the thieving wastefully destructive insanity of the Democrats. But I surely do not want to hear about the importance of funding defense without hearing first about steps to address election security.

    j) Okay, Ramirez may be making a good argument where a more neutral audience is concerned.

      • PRC Ministry of STate Security.

        IE, agents of a hostile foreign power.

  3. Yeah, Roy, me too! It’s clearly (?) not what a rolling stone gathers…