Buftex Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Barry's comment was condescending, but worse still, was wrong. It was his "your an idiot" moment, but on live TV. Maybe condescending...but how was it wrong?
erynthered Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Romney Rally at Red Rocks CO. Article and video. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21839256/romney-ryan-rally-at-red-rocks
Buftex Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) Buffy, you never answered me in Post # 268. You need to man up or just kitty out. I wasn't aware you were asking me anything in post #268, just telling me I am wrong, and making stuff up. If I am wrong about the number we have, as opposed to the number being asked for, it doesn't really change the substance of the presidents' argument. Edited October 24, 2012 by Buftex
3rdnlng Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 I wasn't aware you were asking me anything in post #268, just telling me I am wrong, and making stuff up. If I am wrong about the number we have, as opposed to the number being asked for, it doesn't really change the substance of the presidents' argument. Your's and Obama's argument was based on historic figures not being pertinent in todays world. They weren't historic numbers though. The number of ships (315) was what the Navy felt they needed in today's world.
erynthered Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 obama the dead beat. http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x2053812816/City-gives-up-on-Obama-Biden-bill
Just Jack Posted October 24, 2012 Author Posted October 24, 2012 obama the dead beat. http://www.sj-r.com/...bama-Biden-bill Maybe garnish his wages? Send it to a debt collector?
BillsFanM.D. Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Maybe garnish his wages? Send it to a debt collector? come on now...we know where this money will come from.
Buftex Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) Your's and Obama's argument was based on historic figures not being pertinent in todays world. They weren't historic numbers though. The number of ships (315) was what the Navy felt they needed in today's world. Okay...you know, I am never afraid to admit when I am wrong, but I am not there yet. Are you saying that Obama is lying when he says that the Navy is saying they don't need the money appropriated that Romney is suggesting? I am just asking...I am assuming you are saying that. It seems to me, Obama was very correct on this particualr issue, and the idignation that Republicans have expressed ("It wasn't very presidential!") realize that their candidate got smoked on this particular issue. If you are as dedicated to fixing the economy, why committ a few trilliion dollars to something that doesn't need it? http://www.huffingto..._n_2005201.html Edited October 24, 2012 by Buftex
dayman Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Okay...you know, I am never afraid to admit when I am wrong, but I am not there yet. Are you saying that Obama is lying when he says that the Navy is saying they don't need the money appropriated that Romney is suggesting? I am just asking...I am assuming you are saying that. It seems to me, Obama was very correct on this particualr issue, and the idignation that Republicans have expressed ("It wasn't very presidential!") realize that their candidate got smoked on this particular issue. If you are as dedicated to fixing the economy, why committ a few trilliion dollars to something that doesn't need it? http://www.huffingto..._n_2005201.html The military has all the money they need, they do not need more, they do not need what they have, and nobody in government watches over military spending or questions the military closely enough even about what they say they need. That is all.
3rdnlng Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Okay...you know, I am never afraid to admit when I am wrong, but I am not there yet. Are you saying that Obama is lying when he says that the Navy is saying they don't need the money appropriated that Romney is suggesting? I am just asking...I am assuming you are saying that. It seems to me, Obama was very correct on this particualr issue, and the idignation that Republicans have expressed ("It wasn't very presidential!") realize that their candidate got smoked on this particular issue. If you are as dedicated to fixing the economy, why committ a few trilliion dollars to something that doesn't need it? http://www.huffingto..._n_2005201.html The Navy has asked for 315 ships. They now have 286. That number will go down with the scheduled cuts. It would appear that there is a very good chance that Obama was not telling the truth.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 The military has all the money they need, they do not need more, they do not need what they have, and nobody in government watches over military spending or questions the military closely enough even about what they say they need. That is all. I'm eagerly awaiting your detailed military budget showing largess, or lack of need in various areas including a structural redistribution and deployment of all troops and tactical assets in a way that supports your assertions. I would also like for the accounting to be itemized in such a way that it outlines which specific missions, objectives, recruitment drives, pay, pension, and benefits, weapon systems, humanitarian goals, veterans benefits, infrastructure, and research and development should be cut or abolished to achieve your goals. You say that we spend too much, so I'd like you explain how you know that, in real terms.
dayman Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) I'm eagerly awaiting your detailed military budget showing largess, or lack of need in various areas including a structural redistribution and deployment of all troops and tactical assets in a way that supports your assertions. I would also like for the accounting to be itemized in such a way that it outlines which specific missions, objectives, recruitment drives, pay, pension, and benefits, weapon systems, humanitarian goals, veterans benefits, infrastructure, and research and development should be cut or abolished to achieve your goals. You say that we spend too much, so I'd like you explain how you know that, in real terms. Thankfully I am not a staffer specializing in military budgets. But if you so promptly defend the rhetoric of the self-selected groupthink morons in congress who care more about accumulating evidence that they "support our troops!" than asking critical questions and providing actual oversight of our military as they are constitutionally mandated to do...then I suggest you rethink. I don't know if it is true or not but in the laughable 3rd party debate last night Gary Johnson claimed that a 43% reduction in military spending would take us back to 2003 levels. I know the wars have cost around 1.7 trillion, but Pentagon has spent an additional 1.3 trillion above inflation on it's non war budget since that time. Next to the Bush tax cuts, regardless of what your entitlement bashes will claim (and they have their own valid points) that's $3T from the DOD...making it the largest contributor to our debt aside from the Bush tax cuts over that period of time. Clintons last military budget was less than 33B, Bush's last budgets was well over 600B and now we're talking about increasing it an additional 2T over the next 10 years? And then there's Obama saying he'll keep it the same (which is foolish) and being put on the defensive? Let me ask you this? At what point does it stop? We spend way more than the rest of the world, more than most of the countries w/ significant military spending combined. Our military is a gigantic bureaucratic money sucking machine hell bent on preserving the status and privileges it achieved during the cold war...only the cold war is over. For all you socialist hating people out there, the American military is probably the largest and most lavishly funded socialist institution on earth. And when people suggest that cuts should be made and we should reevaluate our spending and priorities for it's use...they're met by hard line Repub backers (and sometimes D's and I's) with illogical yelling about how we need MORE MORE MORE money to keep "safe" and police the world. It's nonsense. Our military strength is unmatched, our spending is unmatched, and our meddling abroad is unmatched. Anyone who is serious about reducing the deficit would be a fool to mindlessly cheer a pitch for more military spending. Edited October 24, 2012 by TheNewBills
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) So, you don't know how or where to cut, or have any idea what the spending breakdown is, but you're ready to take out your axe? Here's a news flash: global politics, and technology are not static, so it really doesn't matter what we were spending in 2003. That was 10 years ago, and things have changed exponentially, just as they will again over the next 10 years. New weapons technologies are developed every day, and not just here in America, but also in lots of other nations with whom we are not always friendly. Those nations, who are developing similar technologies will not make cuts proportional to ours in order for us to maintain our sizable advantage. They will advance, and gain ground, in some areas surging ahead where there have decided to fund projects we have not. It was not all that long ago that a hostile Soviet Union beat us into space, and over the course of the following 30 years waged a soft war against our way of life, bringing the world to the very brink of a nuclear holocaust. Had we not kept up our spending, the whole world would have lost; and now that we have obtained a sizable advantage, which keeps the world safe, there is no reason to relinquish any part of it and plunge us back into the darkness that lingers on the doorstep of the fog of war. Can our military endure some cuts? Absolutely, but not slashing wholesale cuts in which our military is forced to "make due" with what we give them. You don't "make due" when it comes to the defense of your nation when you have other options. Any cuts must come in the form of making things more streamlined and efficient, not in cuts intended to intentionally make us weaker militarily. When you're holding a Royal Flush you don't discard your Ace. Edited October 24, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
dayman Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) Actually, it was a long time ago the Soviets beat us into space. And it was a long time ago the Soviets ceased to exist. And there is no cold war anymore, that ended a long time ago. And the forces that are realistic threats to this nation are not going to leap frog us if we scale back our military and spend like a sane nation instead of a paranoid group of maniacs still living a cold war that has long since ceased. We would not need to our current level of spending and if we prioritized our foreign policy adventures and made the operation of our military more efficient...even if you disagree with that (which find ridiculous) the argument that we need MORE and must continue to feed the bloating beast is absolutely absurd. Contrary to my reputation here I am somewhat of an independent despite my support of Obama in this election and feelings about the direction the GOP has taken over the last few years...it's been a while but did some thinking and some reading on this issue (b/c I wasn't sure I opposed the push for more more more) and it became obvious to me after reading various articles many of which written by budget staffers that the entire thing is out of control. In fact, I would go so far as to say the complex being out of control is common knowledge. So I'm rather confused by this hard line "more more more" stance some take even to this day. And it's rather strange to insist on a detailed budget analysis from someone on a message board, but even more so when the counter argument is about as vague as it gets "soviets beat us to the moon, technology changes, we need more to keep our advantage over (unnamed threat)." Edited October 24, 2012 by TheNewBills
Buftex Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 So, you don't know how or where to cut, or have any idea what the spending breakdown is, but you're ready to take out your axe? Here's a news flash: global politics, and technology are not static, so it really doesn't matter what we were spending in 2003. That was 10 years ago, and things have changed exponentially, just as they will again over the next 10 years. New weapons technologies are developed every day, and not just here in America, but also in lots of other nations with whom we are not always friendly. Those nations, who are developing similar technologies will not make cuts proportional to ours in order for us to maintain our sizable advantage. They will advance, and gain ground, in some areas surging ahead where there have decided to fund projects we have not. It was not all that long ago that a hostile Soviet Union beat us into space, and over the course of the following 30 years waged a soft war against our way of life, bringing the world to the very brink of a nuclear holocaust. Had we not kept up our spending, the whole world would have lost; and now that we have obtained a sizable advantage, which keeps the world safe, there is no reason to relinquish any part of it and plunge us back into the darkness that lingers on the doorstep of the fog of war. Can our military endure some cuts? Absolutely, but not slashing wholesale cuts in which our military is forced to "make due" with what we give them. You don't "make due" when it comes to the defense of your nation when you have other options. Any cuts must come in the form of making things more streamlined and efficient, not in cuts intended to intentionally make us weaker militarily. When you're holding a Royal Flush you don't discard your Ace. Well, as your candidate pointed out, correctly, our economy is an international issue too...which compromises our safety. Or, was he just being dramatic too?
IDBillzFan Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Romney Rally at Red Rocks CO. Article and video. http://www.denverpos...ly-at-red-rocks Remember when John McCain had 10s of thousands of people gathering to meet him in 2008? Me neither.
3rdnlng Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Thankfully I am not a staffer specializing in military budgets. But if you so promptly defend the rhetoric of the self-selected groupthink morons in congress who care more about accumulating evidence that they "support our troops!" than asking critical questions and providing actual oversight of our military as they are constitutionally mandated to do...then I suggest you rethink. I don't know if it is true or not but in the laughable 3rd party debate last night Gary Johnson claimed that a 43% reduction in military spending would take us back to 2003 levels. I know the wars have cost around 1.7 trillion, but Pentagon has spent an additional 1.3 trillion above inflation on it's non war budget since that time. Next to the Bush tax cuts, regardless of what your entitlement bashes will claim (and they have their own valid points) that's $3T from the DOD...making it the largest contributor to our debt aside from the Bush tax cuts over that period of time. Clintons last military budget was less than 33B, Bush's last budgets was well over 600B and now we're talking about increasing it an additional 2T over the next 10 years? And then there's Obama saying he'll keep it the same (which is foolish) and being put on the defensive? Let me ask you this? At what point does it stop? We spend way more than the rest of the world, more than most of the countries w/ significant military spending combined. Our military is a gigantic bureaucratic money sucking machine hell bent on preserving the status and privileges it achieved during the cold war...only the cold war is over. For all you socialist hating people out there, the American military is probably the largest and most lavishly funded socialist institution on earth. And when people suggest that cuts should be made and we should reevaluate our spending and priorities for it's use...they're met by hard line Repub backers (and sometimes D's and I's) with illogical yelling about how we need MORE MORE MORE money to keep "safe" and police the world. It's nonsense. Our military strength is unmatched, our spending is unmatched, and our meddling abroad is unmatched. Anyone who is serious about reducing the deficit would be a fool to mindlessly cheer a pitch for more military spending. Not to nitpick, but did you leave out a digit?
dayman Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Not to nitpick, but did you leave out a digit? obviously, but you are smart enough to catch my meaning
3rdnlng Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 obviously, but you are smart enough to catch my meaning I'll lend you the digit----mIm
Gary M Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 obama the dead beat. http://www.sj-r.com/...bama-Biden-bill You would think he would have Bernanke send some their way.
Recommended Posts