This is awesome
-
Oakman wrote:
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War.
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then, and also the cost of the Vietnam war was less than that of the Iraq war alone, even in inflation-adjusted terms. See here[^] here[^], here[^], here[^], etc.
Oakman wrote:
We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
Agreed. I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum and that type of thing, not as something that we have military obligations to.
Oakman wrote:
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words.
Well they were political philosophers, policy makers, and founders, not generals and war strategists. Both were important.
Oakman wrote:
I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
Definitely.
J. Dunlap wrote:
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then
We needed to get on the same wavelength. I was thinking manpower. My bad for not reading more carefully. :-O Part of the difference is the costs associated with going to an all volunteer force, something I basically approve of. But since the force is too damn small to fight two wars, we are also hiring contractors to do a lot of military jobs, and mercenary organizations don't come cheap. Much of the difference in the costs of the war, I think, have to do with us really not spending all that much money trying to rebuild South Vietnam. In Vietnam the army did what the army does best, make big things into little things and little things into dust. The North simply did not have the weapons to reply in kind. In Iraq the armed forces were suddenly saddled with a job they were ill prepared for. (In WWII, the army began planning for the occupation of Germany in 1943) and ultimately began to throw money at the problems in hopes they would go away.
J. Dunlap wrote:
I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then
We needed to get on the same wavelength. I was thinking manpower. My bad for not reading more carefully. :-O Part of the difference is the costs associated with going to an all volunteer force, something I basically approve of. But since the force is too damn small to fight two wars, we are also hiring contractors to do a lot of military jobs, and mercenary organizations don't come cheap. Much of the difference in the costs of the war, I think, have to do with us really not spending all that much money trying to rebuild South Vietnam. In Vietnam the army did what the army does best, make big things into little things and little things into dust. The North simply did not have the weapons to reply in kind. In Iraq the armed forces were suddenly saddled with a job they were ill prepared for. (In WWII, the army began planning for the occupation of Germany in 1943) and ultimately began to throw money at the problems in hopes they would go away.
J. Dunlap wrote:
I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Good points on the war stuff... On the cost end of things, it's yet another reason why I think we shouldn't have gotten into the wars to begin with.
Oakman wrote:
and mercenary organizations don't come cheap
Nor do they do anything better than a shoddy job most of the time. They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
Oakman wrote:
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
Sounds good to me! :-D
-
Christian Graus wrote:
yes, I believe there were some posts on that page of people who had that issue when they got the shirts. The issue is, how do you caricature a movement that is already a caricature of reality ?
The way I read the rules, "I hate America" posts belong in the back room. Or don't they apply to you?
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Good points on the war stuff... On the cost end of things, it's yet another reason why I think we shouldn't have gotten into the wars to begin with.
Oakman wrote:
and mercenary organizations don't come cheap
Nor do they do anything better than a shoddy job most of the time. They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
Oakman wrote:
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
Sounds good to me! :-D
J. Dunlap wrote:
They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
government accountability? Isn't that an oxymoron?
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The way I read the rules, "I hate America" posts belong in the back room. Or don't they apply to you?
I see you're still an arsehole? Who would have thought...
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The way I read the rules, "I hate America" posts belong in the back room. Or don't they apply to you?
I see you're still an arsehole? Who would have thought...
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
government accountability? Isn't that an oxymoron?
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I see you're still an a***hole?
I've only started posting and I've figured that out. He wears it on his sleeve.
Majerus wrote:
I've only started posting and I've figured that out.
then you're suffering from dementia and unwilling to honestly debate.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Majerus wrote:
I've only started posting and I've figured that out.
then you're suffering from dementia and unwilling to honestly debate.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
The biggest problem with the Tea Party, is the fact that its goals and philosophy are not well thought out - they are mostly a reactionary group as opposed to a political school of thought. Even their official website shows that to be true. For example, their Core Beliefs section (non-bold text mine): Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. Well, duh! Currently our laws do indeed say that it is a misdemeanor to be here in the country without having a green card or visa. But that doesn't even begin to touch on the complexity of the actual issues of what our immigration policy should be. Stronger Military Is Essential. Stronger how? What determines this need and how do we know when it is strong enough? Special Interests Eliminated. Good point maybe, but care to define it better? National Budget Must Be Balanced. Every politician in congress will agree with this, more or less. The question is, how should it be balanced? Deficit Spending Will End. Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. Intrusive Government Stopped.
All noble goals but I have yet to see truly well thought out philosophies from them on how to do this best (at least not that differ from other parties). Government Must Be Downsized. Agreed, but a significant portion of our spending is on military. How much else are we likely to have to cut in order to downsize if we're increasing military spending from its current levels? Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. Gun Ownership Is Sacred. English As Core Language Is Required.
What is the philosophy behind these? Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. What are these? How do we "encourage" these within a government without infringing on people's rights? After all a core value is supposedly "Intrusive Government Stopped". Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance Define this...? Libertarianism addresses the issues of big government, personal liberties, etc, but it addresses the issues with well-defined philosophy and political thought.J. Dunlap wrote:
Even their official website shows that to be true. For example, their Core Beliefs section (non-bold text mine):
there is no official TEA Party site.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I have yet to see any honest debate from him. One post and you are matching him in the asshole department. If you want to debate, let's. Otherwise I'm not interested.
Majerus wrote:
Otherwise I'm not interested
nor am I, not after visiting the side show.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Majerus wrote:
Otherwise I'm not interested
nor am I, not after visiting the side show.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
45% is still a minority of Americans
Yes? Your point is what? That 45% is not a plurality? That the 35% who oppose the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party are the only ones who count?
Keith Barrow wrote:
polls can be easily skewed
Absolutely, but there are numerous polls showing the results I cited and none showing the reverse.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
That the 35% who oppose the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party are the only ones who count?
If it was just about actual fiscal responsibility, I seriously doubt much of anyone would have a problem with it, but given the tacked on desire to revert society to the 1950s in all cases except the tax rate it's pretty easy to find reasons to discount them. I say this as someone who had to explain to a lot of the people who were involved in the initial outbreak of the movement that calling themselves tea baggers was a really, really bad idea. I've watched the fringe elements who have attempted to shape what could have been a competent movement(possibly, though anyone who attempts to appeal to a historic event in a completely inaccurate context is on a bad start) since they got a hold of it. If they're the average American I'll be on trial for atheism, satan worship and defamation of their lord and savior Ronald Regan within the decade. But like I said, it'd be really hard to find a reason not to accept fiscal responsibility, what is difficult is explaining to people that ending all taxes and freezing the government is not responsible, it's the exact opposite. Being responsible is dealing with the messes that have been made rather than playing the blame game and demanding all incumbents be ejected as if that is going to be a magical solution.
-
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken but other than that you;re right. My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
-
Oakman wrote:
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken but other than that you;re right. My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
Josh Gray wrote:
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken
"The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas. . ."
Josh Gray wrote:
My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
Good on you, mate. Accepted.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken
"The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas. . ."
Josh Gray wrote:
My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
Good on you, mate. Accepted.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
The teaparty take advantage of the gullibility of people (this does not only apply to Americans). The rather shallow rhetoric takes into account that its adherents rarely check out the information they're fed Another technique they employ, continuously, is to make a number of statements, using a verbal syntax template, that virtually everyone can agree with, and then feeds in their lunacy, using the same pattern, which now becomes acceptable do the the forged similarity. Speeches, rallies, but above all, mob-mentality. By golly, they are, truly, the "Party of Palin" - for it's easy to criticize and give glittering generalities as a semblance of solution, but in real life (as we will, unfortunately, all to seen witness), they will only create partisan destruction. Idiot-worship at its best. Bush and his gang offered the same crap - and all but ruined the United State's economy, and the rest of the world along with it. But, you're welcome to polish up those jack-boots. It's a free country . . . unless you have your way.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek dissappointment. If you are searching for perfection in yourself, then you seek failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
The grand irony of your comment is that it is clearly based on your own gullibility. I'm no supporter of the tea party movement, but its members are certainly far more well informed, intelligent and non-radical than are its detractors. The sole reason for its existence is simply that the US government, especially the democrat party, has become entirely controlled by radical leftists. There simply is no disputing that obvious fact. Any effort to do so makes you a liar a fool, or both.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The teaparty take advantage of the gullibility of people (this does not only apply to Americans). The rather shallow rhetoric takes into account that its adherents rarely check out the information they're fed Another technique they employ, continuously, is to make a number of statements, using a verbal syntax template, that virtually everyone can agree with, and then feeds in their lunacy, using the same pattern, which now becomes acceptable do the the forged similarity. Speeches, rallies, but above all, mob-mentality. By golly, they are, truly, the "Party of Palin" - for it's easy to criticize and give glittering generalities as a semblance of solution, but in real life (as we will, unfortunately, all to seen witness), they will only create partisan destruction. Idiot-worship at its best. Bush and his gang offered the same crap - and all but ruined the United State's economy, and the rest of the world along with it. But, you're welcome to polish up those jack-boots. It's a free country . . . unless you have your way.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek dissappointment. If you are searching for perfection in yourself, then you seek failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Balboos wrote:
for it's easy to criticize and give glittering generalities as a semblance of solution, but in real life (as we will, unfortunately, all to seen witness), they will only create partisan destruction. Idiot-worship at its best.
You mean like "Hope & Change"? :laugh:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end" - Unknown
-
http://imvotingteaparty.com/[^]
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
45% is still a minority of Americans
Yes? Your point is what? That 45% is not a plurality? That the 35% who oppose the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party are the only ones who count?
Keith Barrow wrote:
polls can be easily skewed
Absolutely, but there are numerous polls showing the results I cited and none showing the reverse.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Apologies it has taken so long to reply. I'll put this into standard form as far as possible, to make it clear: [Paraphrasing] CG : The Tea Party as a caricature of something that is already a caricature You: The way I read the rules, "I hate America" posts belong in the back room. Or don't they apply to you? Inference: Decrying the tea party is hating america. Le Gauchiste: I think this is more "I think teapartiers are idiots" more than "I hate America". Distind: Which despite what they will tell you, are in fact two very different things. You: Wrong, but thanks for playing. Polls show that 45% of all Americans support the Tea Party's goals, while only 35% oppose them Inference: You beleive that thinking the teapartiers are idiot = hating America because 45% of Americans support the tea party. This is a fallacious argument, statistics state 50.9% (which isn't a minority) of people in the US are women, therefore does a sexist hate america?
Oakman wrote:
That the 35% who oppose the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party are the only ones who count?
Nope, but I think your argument is incorrect, as outlined above.
Oakman wrote:
Absolutely, but there are numerous polls showing the results I cited and none showing the reverse.
In the best tradition of Wikipedia: Citations needed. The sources you use are important, to avoid confirmation bias, and to determine the likelyhood of a fair poll. If I read "Pidgeon Fancier's Gazette", the likelyhood is I'll find plenty of evidence that pidgeon-racing is the best sport there is.