lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

apparently a failed potato crop is evidence of an oppressive government. who knew!
Who said a fuckin' thing about potatoes? As if the Irish alone make up Europe, or those passing through Ellis Island.
It was the bit about the exodus from Europe because of all of those horrid governments we had. And lol @ the Ellis Island comment, wasn't NY in it's early days approx 25% Irish?
Have no idea.

They all came here for a reason, and like I said before it wasn't to escape their mother in laws.They came here for opportunity that they could not get in their homelands, now why would that be?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6309|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

No actually, Reagan had a strong military and he was not big govt. Big govt. did not interfere in the private sector nor did his administration punish achievement with an enormous tax burden.

So basically, yer Virginia, you can have a strong military without big govt. interference.
But thats my point, big military is big govt.

You want big govt to push everyone else around with your big military, but you want to be left alone to do whatever you want without interference.
Hypocrisy FTW, but we knew that already.
Fuck Israel
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6583|MN

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

No actually, Reagan had a strong military and he was not big govt. Big govt. did not interfere in the private sector nor did his administration punish achievement with an enormous tax burden.

So basically, yer Virginia, you can have a strong military without big govt. interference.
But thats my point, big military is big govt.

You want big govt to push everyone else around with your big military, but you want to be left alone to do whatever you want without interference.
Hypocrisy FTW, but we knew that already.
I am for strong national defense and small government.  They are not the same thing.  I understand the propensity to relate them based on their influence on national and international affairs, but they do not have to tied in this way.  I would like to see our military strong on national defense and very limited on projection of power.  I believe there are some instances where the use of force abroad is the right thing to do, but it is way short of what we have been doing for many years.

I would like to also see a huge retraction of the size of our federal government.  The states can implement many of the social programs for their residents if they vote them into existence.  The federal government is there so the states can get along and to protect the nation as a whole.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6703|so randum

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


Who said a fuckin' thing about potatoes? As if the Irish alone make up Europe, or those passing through Ellis Island.
It was the bit about the exodus from Europe because of all of those horrid governments we had. And lol @ the Ellis Island comment, wasn't NY in it's early days approx 25% Irish?
Have no idea.

They all came here for a reason, and like I said before it wasn't to escape their mother in laws.They came here for opportunity that they could not get in their homelands, now why would that be?
No, they came to the USA because they were dying in their thousands in Ireland.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6877|Canberra, AUS

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


It was the bit about the exodus from Europe because of all of those horrid governments we had. And lol @ the Ellis Island comment, wasn't NY in it's early days approx 25% Irish?
Have no idea.

They all came here for a reason, and like I said before it wasn't to escape their mother in laws.They came here for opportunity that they could not get in their homelands, now why would that be?
No, they came to the USA because they were dying in their thousands in Ireland.
Inb4 they were dying because of "big government"
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6703|so randum

Spark wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


Have no idea.

They all came here for a reason, and like I said before it wasn't to escape their mother in laws.They came here for opportunity that they could not get in their homelands, now why would that be?
No, they came to the USA because they were dying in their thousands in Ireland.
Inb4 they were dying because of "big government"
Bracing myself already lol
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6309|eXtreme to the maX

LividBovineI am for strong national defense and small government.  They are not the same thing.  I understand the propensity to relate them based on their influence on national and international affairs, but they do not have to tied in this way.  I would like to see our military strong on national defense and very limited on projection of power.  I believe there are [b wrote:

some[/b] instances where the use of force abroad is the right thing to do, but it is way short of what we have been doing for many years.

I would like to also see a huge retraction of the size of our federal government.  The states can implement many of the social programs for their residents if they vote them into existence.  The federal government is there so the states can get along and to protect the nation as a whole.
Strong national defense and 'big military' - ie projecting aggression abroad - don't need to be the same at all.
If it were mostly done with reservists, as Joh G@lt points out, it would be cheap too.
Fuck Israel
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

No actually, Reagan had a strong military and he was not big govt. Big govt. did not interfere in the private sector nor did his administration punish achievement with an enormous tax burden.

So basically, yer Virginia, you can have a strong military without big govt. interference.
But thats my point, big military is big govt.

You want big govt to push everyone else around with your big military, but you want to be left alone to do whatever you want without interference.
Hypocrisy FTW, but we knew that already.
Nope, they are not the same thing. Period.

THe US has always had a big military, and we are still one of the most free societies in the world.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


It was the bit about the exodus from Europe because of all of those horrid governments we had. And lol @ the Ellis Island comment, wasn't NY in it's early days approx 25% Irish?
Have no idea.

They all came here for a reason, and like I said before it wasn't to escape their mother in laws.They came here for opportunity that they could not get in their homelands, now why would that be?
No, they came to the USA because they were dying in their thousands in Ireland.
SO Europe is made up of the small speck of land called Ireland now.......interesting.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

LividBovineI am for strong national defense and small government.  They are not the same thing.  I understand the propensity to relate them based on their influence on national and international affairs, but they do not have to tied in this way.  I would like to see our military strong on national defense and very limited on projection of power.  I believe there are [b wrote:

some[/b] instances where the use of force abroad is the right thing to do, but it is way short of what we have been doing for many years.

I would like to also see a huge retraction of the size of our federal government.  The states can implement many of the social programs for their residents if they vote them into existence.  The federal government is there so the states can get along and to protect the nation as a whole.
Strong national defense and 'big military' - ie projecting aggression abroad - don't need to be the same at all.
If it were mostly done with reservists, as Joh G@lt points out, it would be cheap too.
There are times, like it or not, that a "strong offense is the best defense".
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5561|London, England

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

No actually, Reagan had a strong military and he was not big govt. Big govt. did not interfere in the private sector nor did his administration punish achievement with an enormous tax burden.

So basically, yer Virginia, you can have a strong military without big govt. interference.
But thats my point, big military is big govt.

You want big govt to push everyone else around with your big military, but you want to be left alone to do whatever you want without interference.
Hypocrisy FTW, but we knew that already.
Nope, they are not the same thing. Period.

THe US has always had a big military, and we are still one of the most free societies in the world.
Completely and utterly false. Post-WWII was the ONLY time in history we didn't almost completely demobilize our military following the conclusion of hostilities.
The U.S. Army as a permanent institution began on 3 June 1784, when the Confederation Congress approved a resolution to establish a regiment of 700 officers and men. Intended as a force to assert federal authority in the Ohio River Valley, the regiment deployed at a string of posts along the Ohio where it functioned as a frontier constabulary during the last years of the Articles of Confederation era.

Congress adopted this tiny force after the reorganization of the government under the Constitution in 1789. Responding to the outbreak of Indian war in the Old Northwest—and especially to St. Clair's defeat in 1791, the worst setback at Indian hands in the army's history—the government expanded the military establishment to over 5,000 in 1792. Organized as the “American Legion” and commanded by Maj. Gen. Anthony Wayne, the army defeated the northwestern tribes at Fallen Timbers in 1794. During the same year, in response to European threats, the government launched a program of seacoast fortifications and added a corps of artillerists and engineers to build and man them.

The army became the center of intense partisan controversy with the rise of political parties and conflicting ideologies. Federalists sought to maintain a relatively large regular force, while Democratic‐Republicans opposed a sizable standing army that might require high taxes and threaten liberty. The result was a period of extreme instability in the army's size and structure. In 1796, the government reduced the army to 3,359. Two years later, however, the Undeclared Naval War with France led the Federalist Congress to expand the authorized level to over 14,000. Alexander Hamilton, appointed as inspector general and de facto commander of the army in 1798–99, strove to transform this force into a permanent, European‐style standing army, capable of checking domestic opposition. This political role aroused intense suspicion, and in 1800, following the diplomatic settlement with France, Congress reduced the army to 4,436. After Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans won the election of 1800, they fixed the peace establishment at two regiments of infantry, one of artillery, and a tiny U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—a total official strength of 3,287. In 1802, they also established the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, primarily to train future officers in military engineering.

Throughout Jefferson's administration, the War Department and the small regular army performed a variety of constabulary tasks: administering the Louisiana Purchase; regulating Indian‐white relations; conducting diplomatic relations in the Spanish borderlands; and policing the Embargo Act against Great Britain and Napoleonic France. Meanwhile, deteriorating relations with Britain and France caused the Republicans to reassess their traditional antimilitarism, and in 1808, Congress authorized an increase to 9,921 officers and men. The onset of the War of 1812 continued the buildup, as the inadequacy of the militia for offensive operations left President James Madison little alternative but to expand the regular forces. The army's official authorized size reached 62,674 in 1814, although actual troop strength fell well short of this level.

The War of 1812 marked a major transition in the army's history. Until then, its dominant characteristics had been fluctuating size and organization, a high rate of turnover in the officer corps, and the absence of a clear sense of mission—conditions reflected in the poor military performance of the early war years. By 1814, however, the army's performance was improving, largely because of the rise of young, combat‐proven commanders to high and middle rank, exemplified by Jacob Jennings Brown, Winfield Scott, and Alexander Macomb.

Although Congress cut the army to 12,383 in 1815, many veterans remained in service, and they came to share a conviction that the army's chief mission should be preparation for a future war with a major European power. With the support of the Madison and Monroe administrations, they rationalized military management through permanent general staff bureaus, adopted uniform tactical manuals and regulations, launched a new and more systematic program of coastal fortification, and, under the direction of Capt. Sylvanus Thayer, revitalized the U.S. Military Academy. When Congress reduced the army to 6,126 in 1821, it tacitly followed a plan proposed by Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that called for a cadre organization: the retention of a high ratio of officers to enlisted men as a way to preserve military expertise and provide a framework for a rapid and efficient expansion in case of war (Skelton, 1992).

The reduction of 1821 was the last major cutback and reorganization of the army's basic establishment in the nineteenth century. It left a force of eleven line regiments under a major general with the title of commanding general of the army (a position held by Winfield Scott from 1841 to 1861), supported by a group of general staff bureaus—quartermaster, engineers, subsistence, ordnance, medical, and pay—reporting directly to the secretary of war. During the decades that followed, the army was usually dispersed at small garrisons along the frontiers and the Atlantic seaboard, where it continued to perform its customary constabulary duties. In particular, regulars enforced the Indian trade and intercourse laws and served as the government's principal instrument for conducting Indian removal. The latter duty produced one of the army's most most tragic assignments—the removal of the Cherokee Indians in the so‐called Trail of Tears (1838–39)—and the army's most frustrating experience of the antebellum era—the long guerrilla conflict in Florida of the Seminole Wars (1818, 1835–42, 1855–58).

The demands of national expansionism brought occasional increases in army strength, including the reintroduction of mounted regiments in 1833 and 1836, the first since the War of 1812. With the outbreak of the Mexican War in 1846, the army's basic establishment swelled to 17,812, achieved mainly by filling the understrength units with recruits; Congress supplemented this force with 10 temporary regular regiments and over 70,000 citizen‐soldiers raised as U.S. Volunteers. Although the postwar demobilization left the army at 10,317, the occupation of the newly acquired western territories soon renewed the buildup. The government added 4 permanent regiments in 1855, bringing the total to 19; on the eve of the Civil War, the regular army's actual strength stood at 16,367 officers and men.
http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-army-1783-1865
16,367 men on the eve of the US Civil War that would see hundreds of thousands of men pitted against each other in single battles!

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-13 09:58:01)

"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
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6703|so randum

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


Have no idea.

They all came here for a reason, and like I said before it wasn't to escape their mother in laws.They came here for opportunity that they could not get in their homelands, now why would that be?
No, they came to the USA because they were dying in their thousands in Ireland.
SO Europe is made up of the small speck of land called Ireland now.......interesting.
Oh i just fucking give up, you're like a brick wall but thicker.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


No, they came to the USA because they were dying in their thousands in Ireland.
SO Europe is made up of the small speck of land called Ireland now.......interesting.
Oh i just fucking give up, you're like a brick wall but thicker.
Not really, it is just when I speak of Europe, I do not mean Ireland alone.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA
Yer right John, and post WW2 is the last time the US has not been caught behind in technology and resources within our military.

We have a strong military, and our constitution limits govt. control. If only it were not broken.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5561|London, England

lowing wrote:

Yer right John, and post WW2 is the last time the US has not been caught behind in technology and resources within our military.

We have a strong military, and our constitution limits govt. control. If only it were not broken.
That's a silly assessment to make. Post WWI Germany made the same decision that Calhoun made in regards to shrinking the size of the military but keeping a higher number of officers and NCOs in the ranks than normal. Didn't seem to hurt them any when WWII came and they spread that experienced body around to add experience to the influx of recruits and reservists.

Did I say to stop researching new military technology? Nope.  Did I say we're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars keeping unnecessary people on active duty? Absolutely.
"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
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yer right John, and post WW2 is the last time the US has not been caught behind in technology and resources within our military.

We have a strong military, and our constitution limits govt. control. If only it were not broken.
That's a silly assessment to make. Post WWI Germany made the same decision that Calhoun made in regards to shrinking the size of the military but keeping a higher number of officers and NCOs in the ranks than normal. Didn't seem to hurt them any when WWII came and they spread that experienced body around to add experience to the influx of recruits and reservists.

Did I say to stop researching new military technology? Nope.  Did I say we're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars keeping unnecessary people on active duty? Absolutely.
The point is, a strong military does not have to mean the number of people on active duty. A strong military can come in the form of many guises. Not the least of which is a fully nuclear one that you argued is "all we need"
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6877|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


SO Europe is made up of the small speck of land called Ireland now.......interesting.
Oh i just fucking give up, you're like a brick wall but thicker.
Not really, it is just when I speak of Europe, I do not mean Ireland alone.
are you being deliberately obtuse?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


Oh i just fucking give up, you're like a brick wall but thicker.
Not really, it is just when I speak of Europe, I do not mean Ireland alone.
are you being deliberately obtuse?
nope, I was speaking of Europe, and Europe is not made up of JUST the Irish.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6877|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:


Not really, it is just when I speak of Europe, I do not mean Ireland alone.
are you being deliberately obtuse?
nope, I was speaking of Europe, and Europe is not made up of JUST the Irish.
/facepalm

If you were paying attention you would've noticed we said that the vast bulk of the immigration from Europe was Irish.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6614|'Murka

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


are you being deliberately obtuse?
nope, I was speaking of Europe, and Europe is not made up of JUST the Irish.
/facepalm

If you were paying attention you would've noticed we said that the vast bulk of the immigration from Europe was Irish.
For a specific period of time, you could say that...but then, for a specific period of time, you could say that for just about any European nationality. And some Asian ones, as well.
“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
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5561|London, England

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


are you being deliberately obtuse?
nope, I was speaking of Europe, and Europe is not made up of JUST the Irish.
/facepalm

If you were paying attention you would've noticed we said that the vast bulk of the immigration from Europe was Irish.
Nah, we've had more German immigrants than from anywhere else during our history. The Irish generally settled in New York, Boston and Philadelphia while the German immigrants moved west to where all the farmland is. During the Civil War there was one Irish Brigade composed of purely Irish while at the same time the entire XI Corps was made up of Germans (They were nicknamed the Flying Dutchmen because they ran at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg).
"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
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


are you being deliberately obtuse?
nope, I was speaking of Europe, and Europe is not made up of JUST the Irish.
/facepalm

If you were paying attention you would've noticed we said that the vast bulk of the immigration from Europe was Irish.
stats please.

The Irish immigration of that era or any other, was not so exclusive that it warrants the assumption that when speaking of European immigration that we could only be speaking of the fuckin' Irish.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6877|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:


nope, I was speaking of Europe, and Europe is not made up of JUST the Irish.
/facepalm

If you were paying attention you would've noticed we said that the vast bulk of the immigration from Europe was Irish.
stats please.

The Irish immigration of that era or any other, was not so exclusive that it warrants the assumption that when speaking of European immigration that we could only be speaking of the fuckin' Irish.
o.O

Have you not been reading

And have you not noticed Irish people speak English too, and that immigrants account for a minority of the population... or is this the 'immigrants will swamp us' mentality
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6919

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


/facepalm

If you were paying attention you would've noticed we said that the vast bulk of the immigration from Europe was Irish.
stats please.

The Irish immigration of that era or any other, was not so exclusive that it warrants the assumption that when speaking of European immigration that we could only be speaking of the fuckin' Irish.
o.O

Have you not been reading

And have you not noticed Irish people speak English too, and that immigrants account for a minority of the population... or is this the 'immigrants will swamp us' mentality
Australia's being swamped by Asians.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6877|Canberra, AUS

Cybargs wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:


stats please.

The Irish immigration of that era or any other, was not so exclusive that it warrants the assumption that when speaking of European immigration that we could only be speaking of the fuckin' Irish.
o.O

Have you not been reading

And have you not noticed Irish people speak English too, and that immigrants account for a minority of the population... or is this the 'immigrants will swamp us' mentality
Australia's being swamped by Asians.
please explaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard