Mother Of All Dumb Tweets


So, lately I’ve been seeing one liberal tweet after another that are all variations on the one above, whining about how much MOAB (the Mother of All Bombs) costs – and what we should be spending the money on instead – and they’re so stupid in so many ways that I don’t even know where to begin. So let’s just count the ways, shall we?

1. Regardless of what you’ve read on social media, one MOAB doesn’t cost $300 million to make, it costs $170,000. It took me all of 30 seconds to fact-check that number, something that half of the liberals on Twitter and Facebook are apparently incapable of doing.

2. Even if it did cost $300 million, that comes out to less than $1 per person in the United States. How exactly does that provide healthcare for anyone? Have you seen how much we’ve already spent on the shit-show known as Obamacare? You seriously think throwing another $300 millon on that bonfire is going to accomplish anything?

3. The money isn’t being spent on the bombs now, it was spent when they were built, several years ago. If liberals were so interested in having that money go towards something else, maybe they should’ve brought it up with the Commander-in-Chief at the time, Barack Obama. Funny how liberals weren’t concerned about the military spending money on these bombs when Obama was the one dropping them, isn’t it?

4. Even if the government decided to spend this money on healthcare or some other liberal pet cause, that’s not how government spending works (and frankly, this is a mistake that a lot of fiscal conservatives make as well). The money raised is specifically earmarked for certain things, back before the government even collects it. They’re not allowed to simply take money out of one pot and put it into another. That’s why members are Congress are always trying to load up their bills with earmarks and pork barrel spending, so that they can get funding for their pet projects without getting into trouble.

5. National defense is a fundamental, basic function of the federal government, as specifically outlined in our founding documents. Providing healthcare is not. Nor is Meals On Wheels, or any of the other stuff you guys think the money should go towards. Basic responsibilities of government come first, liberal wish lists come later (or not at all). Trying to do it the other way around is utter insanity.

6. It’s truly adorable that liberals are suddenly interested in curbing government spending, isn’t it? Where were you guys when Obama doubled the National Debt? Oh, that’s right, you were busy accusing Republicans of wanting to push Grandma off a cliff because they merely suggested slowing down the rate of spending in the future. But now that a Republican is bombing ISIS, you’re suddenly concerned that we’re spending too much money. Sure.

I have no doubt that I missed a few, as this level of idiocy cannot be fully comprehended by someone as simple as myself. So feel free to add your own in the comments. If this much stupidity comes out of us dropping one single bomb, I can’t wait to see what the next four years will bring.

21 comments to Mother Of All Dumb Tweets

  • Magnus Caseus Formatis

    Remember, JimmyC, the truth doesn’t matter to haters. The only thing that matters is “the agenda.” As David Horowitz says, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is the Revolution.”

  • They have no idea what anything costs so why should it surprise anyone that they would get upset about this? They will complain about the cost of that bomb that at current count took out nearly 100 bad guys, but they have no clue how much money is really spent every day. For instance, in 2009-10 (during the Obama Administration) my unit had at least two AH-64s in the air 24/7/365 over Baghdad. Operating costs of the aircraft is around $5000 per hour, so for a team of two that is obviously $10,000 per hour and about a quarter million dollars per day not counting pilots salaries, fuel costs and any ammunition we might use. Now multiply that across the world, with aircraft, ships and vehicles some of which cost much more than an Attack Helicopter and you are talking about a LOT of money.

    One can argue the point about whether or not we should be fighting these wars, but squawking about the money is a tactic they think will get more people to their side.

    At this point if Donald Trump found the fountain of youth and a pot of gold that wiped out the national debt someone would find something to complain about.

  • You could have heard a pin drop among liberals in 2011, when Obama fired 112, million dollar cruise missiles at Libya in a single day (without consulting Congress first). I also don’t remember any of their Monday morning pretend military experts complaining about how many runways weren’t cratered by them. (There’s different ordinance for that.)
    Oprah once made a similar complaint on her Chicago based TV show, about how many school lunches could have been bought for the cost of one missile. I wondered aloud at the time if she should go down to city hall and compare how many school lunches could be bought for the price of the sidearms, shotguns and ammunition purchased by the Chicago PD? Throw in the price of the squad cars as well, and let the cops walk their beats!
    Defending the nation is the federal government’s job one.

    • “Although it wasn’t reported at all in the mainstream media, President Obama dropped more than 23,144 bombs in 2015 and more than 26,172 bombs in 2016. Those are the most reliable numbers available but they’re still far from accurate. The numbers are estimates that are based on individual strikes and those strikes likely included more than one single bomb. Therefore, the total number of bombs dropped is surely much higher. Furthermore, those are only the airstrikes that the government has admitted ordering. They’re notoriously bad at reporting those figures and have repeatedly attempted to cease releasing them altogether. All that said, it’s still no excuse for the media not to cover it.”

      • I’m thinking the ratio of bombs, drones and missiles to Nobel Peace prizes is probably the highest in US history.

        • Rufus


          Don’t forget Yasser Arafat. Not as many bombs as Obama, but he used children instead of airplanes to deliver them.

          • Raoul Ortega

            Yasser Arafat, Le Duc Thuo and Henry Kissinger, Algore, Woody Wilson, Linus Pauling, Rigoberta Menchu, Jimmy Carter, “the Pugwash Conferences”, “the European Union” and the Community Organizer HImself (PBUH). The Nobel Peace Prize committee has delivered a lot of bombs over the years. Some in the megaton range.

  • Great post … these are the kind of tweets that reflect the deep thinking on the left.

  • Penelope27

    Great piece, succinct and to the point. Wish there was a way to earmark this as a favorite.

  • kishke

    Great points.
    What’s more, the countries who have taken this path, ignoring defense spending but spending big on social services (think Scandanavia, and much of Western Europe), are increasingly finding themselves in the impossible position of having promised much, much more than they can ever deliver. Believe me, it doesn’t stop at $300 million.

    • Rufus

      Kishke, hopefully you’re still on the site today… There’s been something I’ve wanted to ask you.
      I ask this out of pure curiosity. I think about this, from time to time, especially around the Easter season as it overlaps with Passover. I have some Jewish friends and co-workers, but it’s the type of question that doesn’t seem polite to ask someone face to face. But on-line with someone I’ve never met in person it doesn’t seem impolite. I hope.

      What is your impression of how most Jewish people view Jesus Christ?
      I know you don’t speak for all Jewish people, and I won’t take offense to any way you answer that question. You don’t even have to answer it personally.

      I’m just interested in your impression, as someone who knows a great many Jewish people and may have insight into what prevailing attitudes are.

      I assume Jewish people fall into 1 of the below camps:
      a) Jesus never existed.
      b) Jesus was a Jew living in Bethlehem/Nazareth around the beginning of the Common Era. Sort-of a hick living in a rural backwater city relative to the Jewish leadership and their hierarchy, in what was a rural backwater region relative to Rome and Roman leadership. Led a relatively unremarkable life, as did most everyone back then.
      c) Jesus was a Jew living in Bethlehem/Nazareth around the beginning of the Common Era. Belonged to a messianic cult. Committed blasphemy and was condemned to death by crucifixion. In other words, the New Testament Gospels’ depiction of the passion is relatively historically accurate, except for the stuff that occurred after the crucifixion.

      If, in your opinion, most Jewish people fall into one of the above three categories, I’d also be interested in your perception of what percent ascribe to each category.

      • Rufus

        Sorry, I could have worded c) better. Ignore the “messianic cult” part. Or, maybe, would wording like, “apocalyptic cult” be more appropriate?

      • kishke

        I can’t answer for “most Jewish people,” only for observant ones, by which I mean Orthodox Jews.
        For them, Jesus definitely existed, and was a member of the rabbinic class who became a heretic and preached heresy, which eventually grew into a new religion. They believe that he was killed by the Romans but his death was blamed on the Jews.
        A widely-accepted view (taught by Maimonides) is that the birth of Christianity was ultimately a positive development, b/c it spread the knowledge of the One God throughout the world, to the detriment of the pagan religions of antiquity.

        • Interesting points. The Jewish scholar Josephus also wrote about the existence of Jesus and John the Baptist as historical facts in the 1st century, so (correct me if I’m wrong on this) Jews who flat-out deny that Jesus existed would be denying their own history.

          Of course, there are Christians who deny the Jewish origins of their own faith and history, so that can certainly cut both ways.

          • kishke

            The Jewish scholar Josephus also wrote about the existence of Jesus and John the Baptist as historical facts in the 1st century, so (correct me if I’m wrong on this) Jews who flat-out deny that Jesus existed would be denying their own history.

            Not necessarily, b/c there is a lot of contention as to how much of Josephus is reliable. The sections concerning Jesus are especially called into question. I’m not familiar with the scholarship on this, but I remember once hearing the claim that the information regarding Jesus was missing from earlier versions of Josephus (which would imply that he was not a big deal in his time) and was inserted later.

        • Rufus

          Very interesting.

          Is Jesus a part of typical, Jewish Orthodox discussion? For example, Jesus is a prophet in Islam and mentioned in the Quran. Is Jesus part of Jewish Orthodox teaching in a similar way, or is his rabbinical ministry simply something some people discuss? And when you write, “only for observant ones” do you mean 100% agree, or it’s just commonly accepted among many?

          Is there any accepted lineage referencing Jesus in your faith? For example, the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament begins with a lineage from King David to Jesus. I assume your faith would also have records of some families, but I always thought Jesus’ family was not noteworthy, at least as far as the Levites running the show in Jerusalem were concerned.