So spending over ten times more on the military than the next biggest spender isn't enough "defense"?lowing wrote:
Yeah the second, you stop asking for a national defense, bubbaloDilbert_X wrote:
They'll stop asking for tax dollars then?lowing wrote:
The military will be on the side of the constitution, not the socialists. Not too worried about that.
Do the Republicans want Obama to Fail?
Sure.
Now, what exactly has Obama done so far?
It's difficult to tell because we are still stuck in the "better than the last guy" stage.
To illustrate:
Sure.
Now, what exactly has Obama done so far?
It's difficult to tell because we are still stuck in the "better than the last guy" stage.
To illustrate:
I'd like to see the focus to change to what he's done...Dilbert wrote:
The Republicans were happy to bankrupt the country, see the economy collapse, lose international support by throwing away humand rights and get it involved in the mire of two unwinnable wars.
Bush was total shit though, Obama not quite so much.
Maybe, but theres a difference between trying to reform the health system and killing hundreds of thousands if not millions so the ME looks more how you like it.
Last edited by Pug (2009-12-30 10:21:50)
Sure is, now is the time to utilize now isn't it?Turquoise wrote:
So spending over ten times more on the military than the next biggest spender isn't enough "defense"?lowing wrote:
Yeah the second, you stop asking for a national defense, bubbaloDilbert_X wrote:
They'll stop asking for tax dollars then?
We already do, and we continue to grow the military budget well beyond what we need for defense. More often than not, it's used as offense.lowing wrote:
Sure is, now is the time to utilize now isn't it?Turquoise wrote:
So spending over ten times more on the military than the next biggest spender isn't enough "defense"?lowing wrote:
Yeah the second, you stop asking for a national defense, bubbalo
That's absurd.Turquoise wrote:
American politics are so divisive that the opposition party always wants the current leader to fail.
The only difference right now is that the GOP is even more obstructionist than the Democrats were under Bush.
The Dems control both houses and the White House. The GOP can't be obstructionist. The Dems just can't get their feces co-located...and they can't come up with policies their constituents can stomach.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It's not absurd. Obstructionism is defined by a strategy, not by the amount of people you have in the legislature. While it is true that the Dem supermajority limits how obstructionist the GOP can be, the point I made remains because every possible way they can actually be obstructionist has been taken by them. When the Republicans had all the power, Dems were at least divided on how much to obstruct.FEOS wrote:
That's absurd.Turquoise wrote:
American politics are so divisive that the opposition party always wants the current leader to fail.
The only difference right now is that the GOP is even more obstructionist than the Democrats were under Bush.
The Dems control both houses and the White House. The GOP can't be obstructionist. The Dems just can't get their feces co-located...and they can't come up with policies their constituents can stomach.
Does seem silly that most democracies are ham-strung by half the elected representatives blocking action just because the other side thought of it or because their party tells them to.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-31 21:09:37)
Fuck Israel
Incredible, I've never heard anyone justify the Kent State massacre before.lowing wrote:
The guardsmen were being assaulted and antagonized by students, they fought back.Dilbert_X wrote:
Happened at Kent State, the military sided with the govt, not the people.lowing wrote:
I believe you are wrong. the military has historically always been anti democrat, and to ask them to turn their guns against their own families and hometowns to enforce an unconstitutional action ain't gunna happen.
In the end however, this was not about OUR constitution or action that affected the US citizen. this was about Vietnam, more specifically Cambodia if I am not mistaken. there is a difference between this and telling the military to thorw away the law and listen to the president.
Students were sitting peacefully BTW.
Fuck Israel
I am not justifying it, nor offering excuses, I am telling you the REASON, big difference. Students were sitting peacefully at one point, then some started to antagonize the soldiers by throwing shit at them.Dilbert_X wrote:
Incredible, I've never heard anyone justify the Kent State massacre before.lowing wrote:
The guardsmen were being assaulted and antagonized by students, they fought back.Dilbert_X wrote:
Happened at Kent State, the military sided with the govt, not the people.
In the end however, this was not about OUR constitution or action that affected the US citizen. this was about Vietnam, more specifically Cambodia if I am not mistaken. there is a difference between this and telling the military to thorw away the law and listen to the president.
Students were sitting peacefully BTW.
This had nothing to with govt. orders to take down the citizens as you are trying to claim. This has everything to do with fucking around with people who are pointing guns at you.
Well, he's right somewhat. The common image of the Kent State massacre is one of peaceful students getting shot down. In truth, many students were throwing rocks and such at the guards.Dilbert_X wrote:
Incredible, I've never heard anyone justify the Kent State massacre before.lowing wrote:
The guardsmen were being assaulted and antagonized by students, they fought back.Dilbert_X wrote:
Happened at Kent State, the military sided with the govt, not the people.
In the end however, this was not about OUR constitution or action that affected the US citizen. this was about Vietnam, more specifically Cambodia if I am not mistaken. there is a difference between this and telling the military to thorw away the law and listen to the president.
Students were sitting peacefully BTW.
It doesn't justify the reaction of the guardsmen, but it provides a context for why it escalated. Kent State was shocking because of how much the guards overreacted and how Nixon essentially avoided taking a closer look at the actions made.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-01 16:05:08)
And that's absurd. The Dems weren't divided on how much to obstruct...they obstructed as much as they possibly could. You don't think the Dems were completely obstructionist during Bush's Administration? If not, you've got some rose-colored glasses on...Turquoise wrote:
It's not absurd. Obstructionism is defined by a strategy, not by the amount of people you have in the legislature. While it is true that the Dem supermajority limits how obstructionist the GOP can be, the point I made remains because every possible way they can actually be obstructionist has been taken by them. When the Republicans had all the power, Dems were at least divided on how much to obstruct.FEOS wrote:
That's absurd.Turquoise wrote:
American politics are so divisive that the opposition party always wants the current leader to fail.
The only difference right now is that the GOP is even more obstructionist than the Democrats were under Bush.
The Dems control both houses and the White House. The GOP can't be obstructionist. The Dems just can't get their feces co-located...and they can't come up with policies their constituents can stomach.
I would argue that obstructionism is defined not by strategy, but by results. If you can't obstruct, you can't be obstructionist. You can have all the strategy in the world, but if you are incapable of executing that strategy, it's worthless.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
well said Turquoise. Maybe lowing's answer to everything would be to 'utilise' all that hardware and blow the fuck out of everyone who disagrees with the US, or rather the Republican party. Especially those fuckin Muslims. Of course, you could always spend those trillions feeding and educating EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET. but nah, let's make shit to kill them all instead.Turquoise wrote:
We already do, and we continue to grow the military budget well beyond what we need for defense. More often than not, it's used as offense.lowing wrote:
Sure is, now is the time to utilize now isn't it?Turquoise wrote:
So spending over ten times more on the military than the next biggest spender isn't enough "defense"?
I don't want my tax money spent feeding people in Africa, at least in we use it on bombs and death machines we'll get an war movie later.ruisleipa wrote:
Of course, you could always spend those trillions feeding and educating EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET. but nah, let's make shit to kill them all instead.
The point was, we spent a ton of money on new weapons that are not being deployed into combat in a REAL effort to win the war.ruisleipa wrote:
well said Turquoise. Maybe lowing's answer to everything would be to 'utilise' all that hardware and blow the fuck out of everyone who disagrees with the US, or rather the Republican party. Especially those fuckin Muslims. Of course, you could always spend those trillions feeding and educating EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET. but nah, let's make shit to kill them all instead.Turquoise wrote:
We already do, and we continue to grow the military budget well beyond what we need for defense. More often than not, it's used as offense.lowing wrote:
Sure is, now is the time to utilize now isn't it?
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-02 15:09:01)
At least Obama seems to have a strategy, which is refreshing.FEOS wrote:
You can have all the strategy in the world, but if you are incapable of executing that strategy, it's worthless.
Fuck Israel
With only a year into Bush's first term, no. With the invasion of Afghanistan, no. With the invasion of Iraq, no.FEOS wrote:
And that's absurd. The Dems weren't divided on how much to obstruct...they obstructed as much as they possibly could. You don't think the Dems were completely obstructionist during Bush's Administration? If not, you've got some rose-colored glasses on....
It's not rose-colored glasses, FEOS. Look back at all of the things the GOP pushed through with relatively little resistance from moderate Dems.
Compare that to the current situation where the GOP automatically resists just about anything Obama does.
Well, going by that analogy, our strategy in Afghanistan has been mostly worthless.FEOS wrote:
I would argue that obstructionism is defined not by strategy, but by results. If you can't obstruct, you can't be obstructionist. You can have all the strategy in the world, but if you are incapable of executing that strategy, it's worthless.
Here's something that's always puzzled me, lowing.lowing wrote:
The point was, we spent a ton of money on new weapons that are not being deployed into combat in a REAL effort to win the war.ruisleipa wrote:
well said Turquoise. Maybe lowing's answer to everything would be to 'utilise' all that hardware and blow the fuck out of everyone who disagrees with the US, or rather the Republican party. Especially those fuckin Muslims. Of course, you could always spend those trillions feeding and educating EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET. but nah, let's make shit to kill them all instead.Turquoise wrote:
We already do, and we continue to grow the military budget well beyond what we need for defense. More often than not, it's used as offense.
How is it that we can spend so much on military technology, while soldiers get shitty armor and badly armored Humvees? How is it that we can spend billions upon billions on drones and other aircraft, but still have families of soldiers living at or below the poverty line?
If you're going to support the amount of spending we do on the military, at least maybe we'll agree that the way it's being spent is too much toward R&D and not enough toward soldiers themselves.
Hey, Raytheon CEO has kids too. And it is his damn rights to earn that money fair and square through government contracts. THE SOLDIERS DIDNT WORK AS HARD AS THEY DID TO DEVELOP WEAPONS. ITS SUPPLY AND DEMAND MAN. THEM LIBERALS ARE TAKING AWAY OUR MONEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYTurquoise wrote:
Here's something that's always puzzled me, lowing.lowing wrote:
The point was, we spent a ton of money on new weapons that are not being deployed into combat in a REAL effort to win the war.ruisleipa wrote:
well said Turquoise. Maybe lowing's answer to everything would be to 'utilise' all that hardware and blow the fuck out of everyone who disagrees with the US, or rather the Republican party. Especially those fuckin Muslims. Of course, you could always spend those trillions feeding and educating EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET. but nah, let's make shit to kill them all instead.
How is it that we can spend so much on military technology, while soldiers get shitty armor and badly armored Humvees? How is it that we can spend billions upon billions on drones and other aircraft, but still have families of soldiers living at or below the poverty line?
If you're going to support the amount of spending we do on the military, at least maybe we'll agree that the way it's being spent is too much toward R&D and not enough toward soldiers themselves.
Soldiers are paid crappy for a few reasons. One, it allows the military to control them better. Two, raises are expensive when you're talking about a million people on active duty and three, it's generally historically been considered a job that you take to get out of the gutter.Turquoise wrote:
Here's something that's always puzzled me, lowing.lowing wrote:
The point was, we spent a ton of money on new weapons that are not being deployed into combat in a REAL effort to win the war.ruisleipa wrote:
well said Turquoise. Maybe lowing's answer to everything would be to 'utilise' all that hardware and blow the fuck out of everyone who disagrees with the US, or rather the Republican party. Especially those fuckin Muslims. Of course, you could always spend those trillions feeding and educating EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET. but nah, let's make shit to kill them all instead.
How is it that we can spend so much on military technology, while soldiers get shitty armor and badly armored Humvees? How is it that we can spend billions upon billions on drones and other aircraft, but still have families of soldiers living at or below the poverty line?
If you're going to support the amount of spending we do on the military, at least maybe we'll agree that the way it's being spent is too much toward R&D and not enough toward soldiers themselves.
As for shitty armor and armored hmmwv's... well, it's a matter of cost. Because of the military procurement system each up-armored hmmwv costs about $50k more than a standard truck. Hell, I rolled around Baghdad with canvas doors and sandbags on the floor as protection against IED's. Soldiers aren't badly protected considering the relatively low mortality rates compared to previous wars. The percentage of extremity wounds is actually higher because of the SAPI plated armor vests. Stuff that would've killed in previous wars is only wounding now. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
"The anti-business mindset . . . is worthy of a pampered adolescent who is searching for a cause with which to display his unique moral sensibility. It is not worthy of an adult who should be able to use his imagination, if not actual experience, to appreciate the extraordinary human effort that has gone into creating the delightful tools that we daily take for granted. On my desk sit various humble objects—a tiny clock, a stapler, a paper clip box, a Lucite cook book stand for holding up drafts and other papers while I type. Each object represents a fractal geometry of complexity, composed as it is of parts that themselves require enterprise to manufacture, assemble, and deliver, all born along on waves of energy and infrastructure to which yet another set of entrepreneurs contributed. The fact that all of those distributors and manufacturers tried to make a profit does not detract from the fact that they offered goods which enhance our lives. . . .Cybargs wrote:
Hey, Raytheon CEO has kids too. And it is his damn rights to earn that money fair and square through government contracts. THE SOLDIERS DIDNT WORK AS HARD AS THEY DID TO DEVELOP WEAPONS. ITS SUPPLY AND DEMAND MAN. THEM LIBERALS ARE TAKING AWAY OUR MONEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYTurquoise wrote:
Here's something that's always puzzled me, lowing.lowing wrote:
The point was, we spent a ton of money on new weapons that are not being deployed into combat in a REAL effort to win the war.
How is it that we can spend so much on military technology, while soldiers get shitty armor and badly armored Humvees? How is it that we can spend billions upon billions on drones and other aircraft, but still have families of soldiers living at or below the poverty line?
If you're going to support the amount of spending we do on the military, at least maybe we'll agree that the way it's being spent is too much toward R&D and not enough toward soldiers themselves.
It is the ingratitude that kills me the most among anti-business types. The materials that furnish a single room in an American home required daring, perseverance, and organizational skill from millions of individuals over generations. I hope they all got filthy rich."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 71312.html
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I would argue that a soldier who doesn't have to worry about his family back home is much better suited at performing his duties.JohnG@lt wrote:
Soldiers are paid crappy for a few reasons. One, it allows the military to control them better. Two, raises are expensive when you're talking about a million people on active duty and three, it's generally historically been considered a job that you take to get out of the gutter.
Well, I'm glad to hear it's not as bad as I've sometimes heard, but I just think the distribution of funds should be more soldier-oriented.JohnG@lt wrote:
As for shitty armor and armored hmmwv's... well, it's a matter of cost. Because of the military procurement system each up-armored hmmwv costs about $50k more than a standard truck. Hell, I rolled around Baghdad with canvas doors and sandbags on the floor as protection against IED's. Soldiers aren't badly protected considering the relatively low mortality rates compared to previous wars. The percentage of extremity wounds is actually higher because of the SAPI plated armor vests. Stuff that would've killed in previous wars is only wounding now. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.
The high tech gadgets are what are saving soldiers lives now. From the balloons over bases that track where incoming mortars are coming from, to devices that predetonate IEDs to UAVs providing aerial cover, this is where the money is going and it's saving lives.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue that a soldier who doesn't have to worry about his family back home is much better suited at performing his duties.JohnG@lt wrote:
Soldiers are paid crappy for a few reasons. One, it allows the military to control them better. Two, raises are expensive when you're talking about a million people on active duty and three, it's generally historically been considered a job that you take to get out of the gutter.Well, I'm glad to hear it's not as bad as I've sometimes heard, but I just think the distribution of funds should be more soldier-oriented.JohnG@lt wrote:
As for shitty armor and armored hmmwv's... well, it's a matter of cost. Because of the military procurement system each up-armored hmmwv costs about $50k more than a standard truck. Hell, I rolled around Baghdad with canvas doors and sandbags on the floor as protection against IED's. Soldiers aren't badly protected considering the relatively low mortality rates compared to previous wars. The percentage of extremity wounds is actually higher because of the SAPI plated armor vests. Stuff that would've killed in previous wars is only wounding now. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.
As for pay. If they want higher pay they can always become civilians.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I gotta say... that poster at the WSJ sounds like a colossal douchebag. Then again, the WSJ is like a convention of douchebags. The corporate culture of Wall Street in general is capitalism at its worst. These are the same fucks who drone on and on about how the market should clear everything, and then when the shit hits the fan, they want the biggest bailout known to man.JohnG@lt wrote:
"The anti-business mindset . . . is worthy of a pampered adolescent who is searching for a cause with which to display his unique moral sensibility. It is not worthy of an adult who should be able to use his imagination, if not actual experience, to appreciate the extraordinary human effort that has gone into creating the delightful tools that we daily take for granted. On my desk sit various humble objects—a tiny clock, a stapler, a paper clip box, a Lucite cook book stand for holding up drafts and other papers while I type. Each object represents a fractal geometry of complexity, composed as it is of parts that themselves require enterprise to manufacture, assemble, and deliver, all born along on waves of energy and infrastructure to which yet another set of entrepreneurs contributed. The fact that all of those distributors and manufacturers tried to make a profit does not detract from the fact that they offered goods which enhance our lives. . . .
It is the ingratitude that kills me the most among anti-business types. The materials that furnish a single room in an American home required daring, perseverance, and organizational skill from millions of individuals over generations. I hope they all got filthy rich."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 71312.html
Now, admittedly, I voted for the guy who enabled these assholes, but then again, so did the guy running against him and the guy before him. Both parties are in this together because of the power that Wall Street wields.
But see... it's not about innovation. It's not usually the CEO that innovates. It's not usually the stockholders that really come up with the big ideas. It's usually somebody high up enough in the food chain to make waves but still not high enough to make the biggest profit from it.
People can idolize the ultrawealthy if they'd like, but it's not drive they are worshipping -- it's privilege. Usually, when somebody makes it to the top, they get lazy. They figure out what works and then rinse and repeat. From that point onward, it's a matter of making the right friends, stroking the right egos, placating the greed of shareholders, etc.
It's not success that is worthy of admiration. Innovation is, but it's not synonymous with success, nor is it what you usually find among the wealthiest of the wealthy. This difference between the 2 is what that poster fails to realize.
Fair points... but I'll add that... more specifically, if they want higher pay, they can become contractors... since we pay them ungodly more than soldiers.JohnG@lt wrote:
The high tech gadgets are what are saving soldiers lives now. From the balloons over bases that track where incoming mortars are coming from, to devices that predetonate IEDs to UAVs providing aerial cover, this is where the money is going and it's saving lives.
As for pay. If they want higher pay they can always become civilians.
Every administration has a strategy. Just because you don't like their strategy doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Dilbert_X wrote:
At least Obama seems to have a strategy, which is refreshing.FEOS wrote:
You can have all the strategy in the world, but if you are incapable of executing that strategy, it's worthless.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular