Romney's Big Bird Comment During Debate Sets Social Media On Fire

[DC Tom]

And ANOTHER thing: if Big Bird is federally funded, isn't Obama's campaign using government resources for campaign purposes? Pretty sure that's not legal...

[IDBillzFan]

And ANOTHER thing: if Big Bird is federally funded, isn't Obama's campaign using government resources for campaign purposes? Pretty sure that's not legal...

 

You looking at this as an American citizen, and you instead need to look at this like Obama, who was undoubtedly thinking, "Who gives Big BIrd funding? The United States government. Who's the President of the United States? Me. If it weren't for me, Big Bird wouldn't exist. Big Bird is my B word and should do as I say,"

 

POTUS is kinda creepy that way.

[OCinBuffalo]

Every piece of the plan had to be accountable?

Yep. You continue to bathe in your ignorance, because you refuse to do the reading. But don't fret. I have some reading for you here. Read and learn:

 

Do you think that the answer to 50 armored divisions lined up on the Russian border, and more infantry and artillery than God...was merely spending more $ on 5(five) US divisions...and whatever Germany and France could field(4 veteran, combat-ready divisions..if we were lucky)? You think the answer to 9 divisions vs. 50 was simply: throw money at it?

 

Do you think the answer wasn't: Communism can't support those divisions longer than 1 month in the field, against our vast array of new, superior weapons, because Communism is a bad idea? Do you think the message wasn't as simple as: "Capitalism and Freedom = technology, and Socialism = Stone Age, and we can prove it? We'll show you how bad it sucks: We are going to make Communism fail, because we are going to stress it beyond it's meager breaking point, and deploy our new, not wasteful, weapons systems all over the world, while at the same time, appeal culturally, and morally, in every venue that will allow us to speak, and even the ones that won't. We will expose, and then take away the immoral socialist strategy, not tactic, of 'throw bodies at it'(see WW2, Korea, Vietnam) because we will convince them that we can kill more bodies than they can throw, and we will be morally justified in doing so".

 

Which answer, do you think, convinced the world, and ultimately, the Russians themselves? You think $, and not demonstrating our resolve, superior political system, and superior military leadership, and morality...was the strategy?

 

hehehehehe...so ignorant. You don't even know what you don't know. Example: What was the role of the A-10 vs. the role of the Apache? How wasteful, has either weapons system been? What was the relative cost of either, both in terms of convincing the Russians that they could not win, and, the object lesson about Capitalism Vs. Communism both embodied? Ask an Iraqi, if you can find one that isn't in tiny pieces, what it was like to be attacked by a 30-year-old weapons system, but with upgraded technology, in the A-10, for which they had no answer.

 

The A-10, is the best example of why you are completely wrong. So are scores of other not-wasteful Reagan, or Reagan-upgraded, systems I can rattle off, and you can't. Do you know the $ ratio of tanks destroyed vs cost of 1 upgraded A-10? No. You don't, and that's why you're wrong. It's perhaps the most efficient/effective weapon we've ever had in the field, all time.

 

The truth, and what you should be arguing: We actually made weapons that were better than we needed, because we overestimated the ability of socialism to make weapons. Our intelligence people were still thinking in terms of hordes of T-34s, and not about fiber optics. We should have known: socialism/Communism sucks all day, every day. But, our paranoia = the M1A1 Abrahms tank, which, as we saw in the Gulf, has a 30-1 kill ratio. Even if the Russians themselves were driving them, it would still be 10-1, and that's if they could keep them working in combat conditions for longer than a week. That, Tgreg, you simple, simple, man...is how you beat 50 Russian divisions...with 5. Do you want to be riding in a tank....that was "wastefully" put together, when you know you have to kill at least 10 baddies to survive today?

 

You're wrong, because it was all overkill, if we are to be objective about it. The Reagan weapons systems not only weren't wasteful, they were far and away more efficient and effective than we needed, and therefore more expensive, than we needed. Such a shame, when I can argue against myself better than you, and you can't even conceive of either argument. EDIT: The real downside to these weapons? They've made people, in both political parties, think we can't, won't, or shouldn't lose soldiers in war, and that if we do, even if the kill ration is 100-1, that means we aren't winning. This is ludicrous.

 

But again, what was the strategy, and what was the tactic? Do you even know the difference between them yet? Or, are you content, as is your candidate, to just have your national security thinking printed out for you, so that you can peruse it for 5 minutes, and then get back to your golf game?

Edited October 9, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

Every piece of the plan had to be accountable?

Yep.

In Reagan's first 6 years the black budget tripled to over 35 Billion -- 11% of the total defense budget. Black budgets, by definition, do not have oversight and no accountability. So, once again, you're wrong. The rest of your dribble is off the point and has no bearing to the conversation. But by all means, keep talking to yourself.

 

Not accounting for the defense spending, Reagan increased government spending 2.5% over his 2 terms and doubled the national debt. Money talks and bullsh*t walks -- regardless of your partisan blinders, Reagan did not run a waste free military. And if you bother to read any of the man's own words on the subject you'd understand what he meant when he said "peace through strength".

 

It's ironic that the the biggest tools used to defeat the Soviet threat weren't from the free market playbook but instead were big, pricey, government run programs -- NASA and the military.

[3rdnlng]

In Reagan's first 6 years the black budget tripled to over 35 Billion -- 11% of the total defense budget. Black budgets, by definition, do not have oversight and no accountability. So, once again, you're wrong. The rest of your dribble is off the point and has no bearing to the conversation. But by all means, keep talking to yourself.

 

Not accounting for the defense spending, Reagan increased government spending 2.5% over his 2 terms and doubled the national debt. Money talks and bullsh*t walks -- regardless of your partisan blinders, Reagan did not run a waste free military. And if you bother to read any of the man's own words on the subject you'd understand what he meant when he said "peace through strength".

It's ironic that the the biggest tools used to defeat the Soviet threat weren't from the free market playbook but instead were big, pricey, government run programs -- NASA and the military.

 

This is an argument I don't see you winning. Reagan increased (non defense) government spending by 2.5% over 8 years? Wow, that's really out there. Reagan doubled the national debt? Give some specific figures and compare them to everyone else that has been the POTUS since. Of course Reagan did not run a waste free military. Has anyone? He was a leader with broad ideas and he made a difference. You are trying to make him some LBJ type figure and contribute his successes to weak liberal policies.

 

Just because you guys don't have any heroes of your own, doesn't give you a license to steal ours.

[CosmicBills]

This is an argument I don't see you winning. Reagan increased (non defense) government spending by 2.5% over 8 years? Wow, that's really out there. Reagan doubled the national debt? Give some specific figures and compare them to everyone else that has been the POTUS since. Of course Reagan did not run a waste free military. Has anyone?

OC says he did. Which has been my only argument.

 

He was a leader with broad ideas and he made a difference. You are trying to make him some LBJ type figure and contribute his successes to weak liberal policies.

I'm not trying to make him sound weak. I've said, several times, that I think he was right to do what he did.

 

Just because you guys don't have any heroes of your own, doesn't give you a license to steal ours.

... So many jokes to make here but I'll be good. I was in no way trying to tear Reagan down. I'm quite fond of his presidency.

[OCinBuffalo]

In Reagan's first 6 years the black budget tripled to over 35 Billion -- 11% of the total defense budget. Black budgets, by definition, do not have oversight and no accountability. So, once again, you're wrong. The rest of your dribble is off the point and has no bearing to the conversation. But by all means, keep talking to yourself.

 

Not accounting for the defense spending, Reagan increased government spending 2.5% over his 2 terms and doubled the national debt. Money talks and bullsh*t walks -- regardless of your partisan blinders, Reagan did not run a waste free military. And if you bother to read any of the man's own words on the subject you'd understand what he meant when he said "peace through strength".

 

It's ironic that the the biggest tools used to defeat the Soviet threat weren't from the free market playbook but instead were big, pricey, government run programs -- NASA and the military.

IF you have to be in a tank, and that tank has to kill 10 Russian tanks at least, for you to survive today, for your company's operation to survive, for your battalion commanders tactical plan to survive, for your Corps commander's theater plan to survive...and for your commander-in-chief's strategic plan to survive, do you think that tank can be "wasteful", "unaccountable"?

 

Can it be inefficient in any way? Or does it have to be most fear, and awe-inspiring killing machine man has ever put on wheels? Doesn't everyone, in that entire chain, have to KNOW that to be true, in order for the strategy to work? How is that accomplished...without accountability?

 

The only ironic thing...is that you are still in this conversation, telling yourself that you aren't an idiot.

 

The A-10 wasn't developed by Nasa or "the military". Nor was the F-18. Nor was the Abrahms tank. Nor was anything of the weapons systems that made the case for: You can no longer just throw millions of your people away, you disgusting socialists, and win. Now, with these weapons, we can kill them all.

 

The only thing that was made by Nasa and "the military"? STAR WARS.....and that, just like most government programs...was mostly smoke and mirrors.

 

Irony? There you have it.

[CosmicBills]

IF you have to be in a tank, and that tank has to kill 10 Russian tanks at least, for you to survive today, for your company's operation to survive, for your battalion commanders tactical plan to survive, for your Corps commander's theater plan to survive...and for your commander-in-chief's strategic plan to survive, do you think that tank can be "wasteful", "unaccountable"?

A tank isn't. 35 BILLION into the black budget is certainly unaccountable. And the black budget wasn't paying for tanks.

 

Can it be inefficient in any way? Or does it have to be most fear, and awe-inspiring killing machine man has ever put on wheels? Doesn't everyone, in that entire chain, have to KNOW that to be true, in order for the strategy to work? How is that accomplished...without accountability?

Again -- this is just words strung together without context or relevancy. It's tangential even to your own point.

 

The only ironic thing...is that you are still in this conversation, telling yourself that you aren't an idiot.

I tell myself I'm an idiot on a daily basis. Just not on this topic.

 

 

The A-10 wasn't developed by Nasa or "the military". Nor was the F-18. Nor was the Abrahms tank. Nor was anything of the weapons systems that made the case for: You can no longer just throw millions of your people away, you disgusting socialists, and win. Now, with these weapons, we can kill them all.

Are you sure the A-10 wasn't built by NASA. Might want to double check that.

 

The only thing that was made by Nasa and "the military"? STAR WARS.....and that, just like most government programs...was mostly smoke and mirrors.

 

Irony? There you have it.

You're right ... the Apollo missions had nothing to do with NASA or winning the Cold War.

[OCinBuffalo]

OC says he did. Which has been my only argument.

 

 

I'm not trying to make him sound weak. I've said, several times, that I think he was right to do what he did.

 

 

... So many jokes to make here but I'll be good. I was in no way trying to tear Reagan down. I'm quite fond of his presidency.

I never said waste-free. Now that you see the big loss coming...don't start putting words in my mouth to break your fall. Here's another hint: "running it like a business" does not = "waste free".

 

Perhaps you should try actually working in a business, or observing one(why wouldn't an artist want to observe the real world), and then you'd see that we operate on risk vs reward. Sometimes the reward makes the risk worth it, even if it doesn't work out. Don't they do the same thing with movies? Why is this a foreign concept to a screen writer? Or...are you just being a disingenuous turd?

 

I did say, that for every Bradley fighting vehicle...there are 50 weapons systems that were absolutely kick-ass...and cheap in terms of our cost vs. what we kill. The A-10, the Aegis missle system, the HMMVV. Again, risk vs. reward governed these programs...just as it does in business.

 

The fact is, that the DOD is far and away the most efficient and business-like department, and has been since Reagan. And, ask DC_Tom, or me, or anyone else who has worked at the decision-making level at DOD: they waste a lot of money, but they are ACCOUNTABLE for it. They also kick a lot of ass: or have you missed every battle we have fought for the last 20 years?

 

In contrast: HHS wastes 5x the money DOD does relative to their budget. That I know, from tons of personal experiences. I also know lawyers who work in the fraud department, and they are clear: the Federal employees are just as culpable for their losses as the fraudulent claimants.

 

That's because those employees are UNACCOUNTABLE, and there ain't jack schit these lawyers, or anyone can do about it.

Edited October 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

I never said waste-free.

 

 

....

Also don't forget: Reagan increased spending on the military....but not before he called the entire cadre of flag officers into his office, and told them they had to run it like a business, and that waste would not be tolerated.

And yet, 35 Billion was spent on projects without executive or congressional oversight. I don't know any businessmen who would let 11% of their budget triple without any accountability.

 

That's bad business. That's a lot of waste. And a lot of money. Keep spinning.

[OCinBuffalo]

A tank isn't. 35 BILLION into the black budget is certainly unaccountable. And the black budget wasn't paying for tanks.

Do you know what it cost to develop the Abrahms tank? Do you know what it cost to develop the F-18? No? You and your $35 Billion is retarded, assuming you are being a D-bag, and that # is accurate. When one considers the budgets of the 100s of programs we developed and deployed...35 B ain't schit.

 

Now, why...do you think that a black budget is "black". Have you ever heard of "accounting"? How about "forensic accounting" Or, hell how about just plain old "cost accounting"? Do you think...that the USA, is the only world power that has...that awesome super soldier known as an: accountant?

 

Yes, it is possible to learn that we have 10 CIA NOCs in Argentina....when we have a line item for "CIA OFFICER expenses, incidental, Southern Command, Argentina" and a $ figure.

 

Do you know what the word "covert" means?

 

See...this is why this conversation is hysterical, and, why I'm still in it.

Again -- this is just words strung together without context or relevancy. It's tangential even to your own point.

Actually, no, that is only true for a person who's never had to actually put his life on the line for anything, whose never even had to consider what that would mean, or feel like, whose never had to be in charge of a bunch of people's lives, have to write the letters if they die, and, to avoid the F out of that...makes damn sure that tank crew, and every other one in the command, trains, and trains, and hates them for it...to the point that they can kill 40 tanks before being taken out.

 

But all of that, all of it, is predicated on whether that crew believes in that equipment, the training on it, and the leadership to make use of both in combat. Meanwhile, the Corps commander has to sit there, and pray, that every, dopey, 20-something CO he has, and all his NCOs are doing that job, and that the equipment he signed off on, will actually work, and not get everyone killed. Meanwhile the president is a 1000+ miles away, hoping that all of us, all the way down to platoon commander, aren't just a bunch of candy-ass, pampered buffoons with little bits of metal on our shoulders, and that we can actually make use of the equipment he has just blown a ton of money on.

 

It's hysterical that you think this is "tangential", when it is in fact central. Are you trying for full retard?

 

More irony: Most of the time, it is the only thing. Each point of the chain, bitches at every other constantly, and everybody holds everybody else accountable. Most of the time it's not just accountable, some bastards are looking to screw you over, so they can advance. So, usually its > accountable. But you don't know this, so you don't get this.

I tell myself I'm an idiot on a daily basis. Just not on this topic.

Tangential. That's what you said.

 

Do yourself a favor: tell yourself you're an idiot again, for saying that.

Are you sure the A-10 wasn't built by NASA. Might want to double check that.

Yes, I am absolutely sure that the A-10 was developed by a private company. Just as all weapons systems are. Most of the RPFs are released and bid on. Sometimes, an aviation company builds something and takes it to the government, and it's so good they jump at it. Sometimes, NASA may generate some research, or an application of that research, and that is shard with these companies, or, more likely required by the bid.

 

If you really want to get into this, perhaps, for historical context, you should look into all the contracts that were let to Howard Hughes during WW2, how much money he got vs how many planes he put into combat, and something called the Spruce Goose, and the embarrassment for a certain Senator. Or, for even more context, you could investigate the Maginot line, or the sho-sho, or any other French abomination that was foisted upon the US Army AFTER Yorktown...

 

...and then compare of that the weapons systems of the Army of Reagan. Do some cost accounting work, and get back to me.

You're right ... the Apollo missions had nothing to do with NASA or winning the Cold War.

Didn't say that. Your distortion of what I say is becoming tiresome. Do you think any poster, on this board, doesn't realize when you do it? What I said was: the only weapon that we 100% wasted money on...because it was intended to be all a waste...was STAR WARS.

 

The dopey Russians...seeing us create tanks, cruisers, destroyers, fighters, one after the next, that could wipe out their "en masse" strategic advantage...

 

...were easily lulled into believing that STAR WARS was real. After all, if we can put a rocket engine in a tank, and not require midgets to drive it, like their tanks did...why couldn't we do that?

[DC Tom]

Are you sure the A-10 wasn't built by NASA. Might want to double check that.

 

 

It wasn't. NASA had exactly nothimg to do with it.

 

It's also a great (and rare) example of an excellent defense program.

[CosmicBills]

It wasn't. NASA had exactly nothimg to do with it.

 

It's also a great (and rare) example of an excellent defense program.

This was a poor attempt at sarcasm.

[OCinBuffalo]

Are you retarded? Seriously? Since when does "waste-free" = tolerate waste? Words mean things. Those words don't mean the same thing.

 

There's no way this was going to be a waste-free thing, no different than most of my projects aren't waste-free.

 

However, I'm not tolerant of waste, my clients sure as hell aren't. Actually, most of the time they have no idea, one way or the other. But, if there is any, we find out why, and we make damn sure it doesn't happen again. That's called: accountability.

And yet, 35 Billion was spent on projects without executive or congressional oversight. I don't know any businessmen who would let 11% of their budget triple without any accountability.

 

That's bad business. That's a lot of waste. And a lot of money. Keep spinning.

Then you don't know GM. You don't know Boeing. You don't know St.Gobain. You don't know half the major banks in this country, all past clients.

 

See, there's 2 sides to this story:

 

I've seen those companies, waste millions on failure, or flights of fancy, that should have gotten everyone fired. I've gotten calls on a Tuesday afternoon, with my ass on a flight and taking over these projects on Wednesday, even though our rates/expenses triples the budget, at least. There was no "oversight" from the board, nobody saying a F'ing word...other than "Welcome to Dallas, I've known Bob at Citigroup for years, and said you guys did a good job for him in NYC. Can you get the thumb out of our asses with this Oracle...stuff...hehe "?

 

Our response for taking over their schitty, 6-months-behind project that these clowns should never have started without somebody like us in the first place? "Yes, but, F you, pay me! You're going to put us through hell for the next 6 months or so...you're going to pay for it."

 

Now...do you think that me expensing season tickets for my entire crew down there, in 3 sports....was a "waste"? How about the stippers, the boozing, big dinners and all the rest of it? Sounds wasteful doesn't it?

 

But, as I was walking out of their door, for the last time, luggage in tow...the pissant CIO ran down the hall and said "thanks...you guys did it". That's rare, but I bet that MFer doesn't think a single lap dance was a waste, now does he? He gets to keep his job, and my crew got some good times out of the deal.

 

Even. On to the next giant F up.

Edited October 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

Are you retarded? Seriously? Since when does "waste-free" = tolerate waste? Words mean things. Those words don't mean the same thing.

 

There's no way this was going to be a waste-free thing, no different than most of my projects aren't waste-free.

 

However, I'm not tolerant of waste, my clients sure as hell aren't. Actually, most of the time they have no idea, one way or the other. But, if there is any, we find out why, and we make damn sure it doesn't happen again. That's called: accountability.

 

Then you don't know GM. You don't know Boeing. You don't know St.Gobain. You don't know half the major banks in this country, all past clients.

 

See, there's 2 sides to this story:

 

I've seen those companies, waste millions on failure, or flights of fancy, that should have gotten everyone fired. I've gotten calls on a Tuesday afternoon, with my ass on a flight and taking over these projects on Wednesday, even though our rates/expenses triples the budget, at least. There was no "oversight" from the board, nobody saying a F'ing word...other than "Welcome to Dallas, I've known Bob at Citigroup for years, and said you guys did a good job for him in NYC. Can you get the thumb out of our asses with this Oracle...stuff...hehe "?

 

Our response for taking over their schitty, 6-months-behind project that these clowns should never have started without somebody like us in the first place? "Yes, but, F you, pay me!"

 

Now...do you think that me expensing season tickets for my entire crew down there, in 3 sports....was a "waste"? How about the stippers, the boozing, big dinners and all the rest of it? Sounds wasteful doesn't it?

 

But, as I was walking out of their door, for the last time, luggage in tow...the pissant CIO ran down the hall and said "thanks...you guys did it". That's rare, but I bet that MFer doesn't think a single lap dance was a waste, now does he? He gets to keep his job, and my crew got some good times out of the deal.

 

Even. On to the next giant F up.

Strippers??? You think strippers have anything to do with this?

 

I can just say words out loud too. Like: CHIPMUNK! BANANA! HYPOCRITE!

 

It's kinda fun trying to think like OC.

[OCinBuffalo]

Strippers??? You think strippers have anything to do with this?

 

I can just say words out loud too. Like: CHIPMUNK! BANANA! HYPOCRITE!

 

It's kinda fun trying to think like OC.

 

Once again, you show that you really have no idea how the A-10 came to be.

 

If you think strippers, or hell, hookers, had nothing to do with it, or any other fighter, you are fooling yourself, and you really don't know the culture of the Air Force at the time. EDIT: Remember that Tailhook Navy thing? Do you think that was the first year they did that? Didn't the Secret Service(facepalm) just have a problem with this recently?

 

Hookers and strippers have done their patriotic duty for this country, as much as any engineer has.

Edited October 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Nanker]

It wasn't. NASA had exactly nothimg to do with it.

 

It's also a great (and rare) example of an excellent defense program.

One of the few warplanes not made by Northrop Grumman or Boeing. It was made by Fairchild Republic.

[Jim in Anchorage]

And ANOTHER thing: if Big Bird is federally funded, isn't Obama's campaign using government resources for campaign purposes? Pretty sure that's not legal...

Is using air force one for for campaign purposes legal?

[RkFast]

Now...do you think that me expensing season tickets for my entire crew down there, in 3 sports....was a "waste"? How about the stippers, the boozing, big dinners and all the rest of it? Sounds wasteful doesn't it?

 

HOW DO I GET A JOB WORKING WITH YOU??!!!???

[BillsFanM.D.]

HOW DO I GET A JOB WORKING WITH YOU??!!!???