Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

lacrew_2000 · 07-09-2010, 04:44 PM

Guns are a hobby to some people. Its fun to collect and trade different styles and calibers. Since one man can really only use one at a time, I've never understood why people get nervous when somebody owns multiple guns.

Myself...uno rifle, small caliber, so target practice is cheaper....but heck, I might get a pistol some day.

lacrew_2000 · 07-09-2010, 04:56 PM

I guess I really don't care what Iran and North Korea say, and any claim they made that their nuclear pursuits were due to fear of US attack would not be genuine (if anything their pursuits make attack more likely). Our nation exists to prosper and exist in peace. The Iranian regime exists to threaten Israel and the US....same for the near diety status dictator of NK. I see a difference.

Presently, we have the most powerful military in the world. I think this is a stabilizing influence on the rest of the world....for example, Europe hasn't degenerated into WW3, since our ascendency to superpower status. We have had a very long standing military philosophy that we do not want to fight our wars within the borders of the US...instead, we project power, and fight our battles elsewhere. Its expensive. We still have island territories left over from WW2, we still have a large presence in Korea and Germany...but to retract and let Russia and China attain parity would risk fighting a future battle on our soil.

Like I said before, military protection is one of the primary duties of the federal government. Yes there is tremendous waste, that should be fixed...but the notion of cutting spending, just because we are too far ahead of other nations, escapes me.

dirty dog · 07-09-2010, 05:44 PM

"You still can cut spending without reducing jobs- do we really need to be designing more billion dollar stealth planes? The F-15 fighter is an outdated plane by our standards but it's still superior to anything the Chinese have or the Russians and the F-15 is no longer our top plane- it's been replaced by the F-22 Stealth Raptor"

You need to get your facts straight, the Sukhoi SU 27 figher is superior to the F-15 and is an equal to the f-18 superhornet. The russians also have Stealth technology, why you assume no other country is improving their arms is crazy to me.

"I mean that is really widespread- no other country including China which has the biggest army based on soldiers has as many bases or troops in other countries."

Thats because we have a habit of rebuilding countries after we fight them, and we leave soldiers there for their protection and to allow us to respond quickly to a situation abroad.

China - Standing Army and Reserves - 3,455000
add in paramilitary - 4,100,000
total - 7,555.000

US - standing army and reserves - 2,932,000
add in paramilitary - 453,000
total - 3,385,400

"What about Republican Presidents who cut spending in Education? Do you really want Americans who can't read or write- heck do you want soliders men/women going into the military with an elementary school education???"

Apples and oranges, this thread is about military spending, your moving the goal post.

"Also, again to the gentlemen who said if we cut spending we would lose jobs- what if the U.S were to create drone soldiers that could do everything that a human could do and we wanted to employ let's say 15,000 of these "done soldiers" in the military. If those 15,000 could effectively replace 15,000 human soldiers would you complain that it's a bad idea because 15,000 soldiers won't have a job??? Isn't a Predator drone taking a place of a pilot? If they created drone airplanes and let's say hypothetically they were safe- wuld you say scratch the idea because it would mean airline pilots would lose jobs? Something has to give dude."

All these jobs your so happy to get rid of arnt going to save anything, because these unemployeed people wont be paying taxes so ya you might reduce the budget, but your going to have less money in the coffers anyway. Its not like a pilot can go to another airline, if all of them have been replaced by drones, so in effect you have eliminated these jobs for ever, then what, what if robots could dispense medication, would you like to be unemployeed and your industry eliminated, how many jobs can we eliminate before we have permanent unemployeed people, And no, unless you can replace the jobs with other jobs then no we shouldnt replace them with drones, something has to give dude, your right, unless your goal is for every american to be out of work and taken care of by the goverment then you cant keep losing jobs that are not being replace, you complain about jobs going over seas yet you have no problem getting rid of jobs so a drone can fly a plane. One day a computer or some form of technology is going to replace your job, then what.

dirty dog · 07-09-2010, 06:00 PM

Well first of all the united states did not tell Korea or Iran it could not have nukes, the United Nations did, but as a superpower and the worlds policeman as everyone wants, we must ensure that nations that have shown a history of aggresive or irratic behavior or who have directly threatened the use of such a weapon on another country, that they do not have weapons of mass destruction. We dont however tell them whether or not they can building up their convential defense forces and both have done so quite well.

Your reaching to grab traction for your argument.

john_galt · 07-10-2010, 01:55 AM

Wow, is this a conspiracy? You post and then you same guys try to overwhelm the board with more posts all saying the same thing...and you know what? You're wrong on so many things.
Let me give you something simple to ponder. When World War II started (that was a good war remember) the US had three real aircraft carriers in the Pacific (Hornet, Yorktown, and Enterprise. The Langley was a hybrid). The Japanese had about ten (they had several classes that could be called carriers and somethings that didn't quite live up to the name). Due to this imbalance Japan thought they could take out our fleet at Pearl and drive us out of the Pacific. Okay, lets say for the sake of argument that an aircraft carrier cost 100 million dollars to build in 1940. If we had spent the money to build three more full size carrier groups at a cost of nearly half a billion dollars there probably would have been no war in the Pacific. We would have saved the lives of 180,000 Americans, 80,000 Philippinos, 450,000 Japanese soldiers and would not have spent almost 7 billion dollars doing it. So it should be obvious that being penny smart and pound foolish is not the way to go.
To make it more modern; would you want your family member to die because Congress scrimped on supplies, training, or equipment? You see that is what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. We spent them into the ground rather than fight them. They tried to keep up but they had a secret; their equipment was crappy and they assumed that ours was just as crappy. The Gulf War surprised them that our tanks, cruise missiles, patriot batteries, A-10s, and stealth fighers worked. The generals knew they could never win a war with the US at that point.

Maybe you should call Barry and suggest that since we are the world's policeman then maybe every country basking in our protection should send the US 1% of their GDP as a tax. Would that make you feel better?

dirty dog · 07-10-2010, 02:36 AM

Well tell me exactly where I am wrong?

john_galt · 07-10-2010, 02:23 PM

I don't have time right now, weekend cleaning and writing, but later tonight I will break it down. I have to be careful because many of you guys sound so much alike I almost think you're the same person. You are not the same person are you?

dirty dog · 07-10-2010, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_galt

I don't have time right now, weekend cleaning and writing, but later tonight I will break it down. I have to be careful because many of you guys sound so much alike I almost think you're the same person. You are not the same person are you?

Tell you what, dont bother because I am not really interested. You might be amazed to know others have an education too. But like I said dont bother doing it for me cause I am not interested in the hot air.

john_galt · 07-10-2010, 05:47 PM

Okay, there has been a break in the action and I had a chance to read ALL of the posts...
1. DD, I never said that you were wrong. Why you take it that way I don't know but I was speaking of wellendowed and catnipdipper. They seem to echo each other and knock down straw men together.
2. Name a Republican president who has really cut education spending. That means that one years spending is less than the proceding year rather than a smaller increase. I do agree that it has very little to do with the topic at hand.
3. We have to be ready to carry combat to the enemy anywhere in the world whether the enemy is a dirty group of terrorists number less than two dozen or a major war with a "friendly" power like Russia, China, or Venezuela.
4. I experienced life in the military under both Carter and Clinton. My third ship, the USS Guam, was nothing more than a paperweight under Carter. They did not have the crew, the training, or the repair parts to get underway. Their Captain had them towed away from the pier and anchored them within sight of Norfolk. Their orders were to work 24/7 until they could get back into port under their own power. Clinton refused to sign new contracts for cruise missiles but he loved to shoot them at empty tents. There was a lingering rumor that some commandering officers were under reporting the contents of their magazines but I won't know about that being an engineer...
5. I made the case earlier that spending money saves lives. That is the bleak choice. Save money and spend lives or spend money and save lives. The question becomes which is easier to replace? Right now it is money. Of course that doesn't mean WASTE money on systems that do not work nor are requested by the military like the Phoenix missile system that was built in Ted Kennedys state for years. Somewhere those missiles are sitting gathering dust.

The President, whom ever it is, has the primary responsibility to protect the country and the citizens of the US (and our friends and allies). NOTHING is more important than that. Not the environment, jobs, social concerns, or union jobs. I remember the day we got the word that we were going to war in the Gulf. I have to run over to NSC to make sure that my division had our repair parts. I heard the duty officer announce that he needed help to work after hours but he could not promise overtime pay. Every union person clocked out and went home. Then only people left to work were the retirees. I would have loved to kick the ass of every damned union stooge that day. A 30 minute pick up turned into a 3 hour wait. I felt pride of my navy when I watched the USS Kennedy being rearmed by a string of helos (CH-46s) arriving from Yorktown. Then the USS Comfort showed up next to my ship. Buses arrived hourly with nurses, doctors, dentists, and specialists. The pier was filled with forklifts bring over supplies. We had the problem of putting together an engineering plant in two weeks that we had just spent a month and a half taking apart for overhaul. Even the tech reps were involved. Our "civilian" tech rep for our diesel generator showed up in camoflage one morning. He had been activated!
How does this affect the civilians? We were one of, if the not the last ship out of Norfolk and the city had turned into a ghost town. Wards Corner (a popular hangout) was empty, you could have had gocart races inside of the Military Circle mall. I saw the local TV crew showing a popular restaurant with only one person at a table.

There is the old story about how badly cities have treated the military in their towns until the commanding officer either shut the gates or had the troops paid in $2 bills. The towns quickly found out how much they needed the military.

A strong military promotes peace, always has and always will. This is a lesson never learned by liberal politicians.

kcbigpapa · 07-10-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_galt

2. Name a Republican president who has really cut education spending. That means that one years spending is less than the proceding year rather than a smaller increase. I do agree that it has very little to do with the topic at hand.

Here's a guess. How about George W. Bush. Look at the fiscal budget for 2008 opposed to the 2009 fiscal budget, which was Bush's last budget proposal. The numbers were lower in 2009 than 2008. Is that current enough for you?

The rest of your posts seems like the same nonsensical bullshit that you normally write. Your posts continue to make you seem as if you may very well be the stupidest man alive (notice I did not call you the stupidest man alive). I don't know how many more hours of college you need to make you smart, but the 200 you have already taken haven't helped yet. Were they ALL remedial? I don't even get the part about bashing unions. I have worked around a lot of those blue collar types before and it seems more often than not, those guys tend to be veterans, so it seems as if you are bashing veterans. Why do you hate veterans so much? How often do the defense contractors provide their services for free? Or their employees, do they work for free? Do you think you're a Walmart manager forcing guys to work off the clock? Why would you hold these workers to a different standard than others? Is it because they tend to vote Democratic? You're level of intellect shows more and more in your posts, as, more importantly, does your level of hate. You have some serious anger issues and maybe you should speak to a therapist about these issues. It isn't healthy. Now go cry about this post to the moderators like the little girl you act like (notice I did not call you a little girl...LOL), or better yet, maybe you should ask for another sanction. That went over real well last time. I'll let you get back to your "writings" now. For some reason, I am conjuring up the image of the Unabomber's Manifesto.

john_galt · 07-10-2010, 09:15 PM

Here is a pop quiz on government; when did a president write a budget? Congress writes the budget, the president make an outline that he submits but Congress writes the budget. Who controlled the Congress in 2009? Democrats! I'll check your numbers but for the sake argument we have to blame the democrats for the budget which the president signed. He has no line item veto.
http://www.ncsl.org/StateFederalComm...1/Default.aspx

Man, it must suck to be you. Look at the numbers; the budget between 2008 and 2009 remained the same. LOL The Congress (democrats) slashed the funding to "Reading First" but the president hoped to reinstate it. Increased funding for teacher grants (doubled)... The point is that funding decreased on some programs but increased on many others. Now do you call a zero increase a decrease? Now that is some new math.

kcbigpapa · 07-10-2010, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_galt

Man, it must suck to be you.

JG, sometimes I feel as if I'm arguing with an unarmed man... intellectually that is. BTW, it is great being me, I get to intellectually bitch slap the likes of you. And it is is so satisfying because of your smug arrogance.

As far as the budget. You got me. You absolutely got me... that is if you are just referring to elementary and post-secondary education budgets. But if you are wondering what the WHOLE budget of the U.S. Department of Education is, you may want to look below. SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! JG, once again, you're wrong. You can try to add up all the departmental budgets in the link you provided, or you can go to the following link and read the total outlays from mandatory and discretionary spending for the fiscal year 2009. I did put the total numbers down of both types of spending just for simplification.

2009 U.S. Department of Education Budget

Total, Outlays (numbers are in millions)
2007 - 66,392
2008 - 68,066
2009 - 63,520

If you want to look at total discretionary spending, then than also went down, not by much, but it did. I mention this because the link you provided discussed just discretionary spending. I believe the last increase in discretionary spending was from fiscal years 2004 to 2005. All others have been cuts. Let me know if you need anymore help. I'll hold your hand and walk you through the process as some of this stuff is confusing and scary to you. Also, I never said anything about who writes the budget. You are reading into things I never said, just like the time I said the President enacts laws and... well here is the link:

JG being wrong again because he reads into things that are not there because of his lack of reading comprehension skills and his lack of knowing the definition to words... LOL!!!

Have a nice day JG.

dirty dog · 07-11-2010, 08:24 AM

Okay, as entertaining as this has become, and I hate to be a spoil sport, we probably need to tone it down, I would hate to see you get points Papa. Cause I can see Bubbas hand going to the slap down buttom.

john_galt · 07-11-2010, 09:49 AM

I have to agree with DD again. This thread is going to hell. For KC, of course I'm talking about discretionary spending. Since the rest is mandated you have to pay that. Like making a personal budget, some things have to be accepted and are not subject to change. If you look at the mechanics of discretionary spending you will see cuts in programs that set up rewards for teachers and other programs that do really have anything to do with the education of children. At the same time you will see increases in some programs that do deal with education.
KC are you a used car salesman? I'm not going to except the extended service warranty or the undercoating as part of the legitimate price of a car.

I guess it's up to wellendowed or the moderator whether a thread about the US defense budget can go astray with contorted claims about education budget.

kcbigpapa · 07-11-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_galt

I guess it's up to wellendowed or the moderator whether a thread about the US defense budget can go astray with contorted claims about education budget.

You posed the question about a GOP president that has reduced education spending. I just answered your question, so don't start pointing fingers about going off topic. JG, it is ok to admit when you're wrong. And I mean that seriously. It isn't a sign of weakness. I know I am not 100% right in everything I do in life and that is ok, NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is perfect. But to take the style of debate to the pundit level is ridiculous. You and LM need to seriously learn that being wrong is fine. We learn from our mistakes.