Here comes the "Obama is selling out our military" mantra

#2
#2
Even if military spending should be cut down, I'd rather have a big, powerful military than spend the money on socialized health care.
 
#4
#4
Why do we need to cut the military?

We are saving billions in healthcare now. Should be in good shape.
 
#5
#5
lawgator1 said:
Gates: Pentagon must cut overhead, restrain spending - CNN.com

20 x more fighter planes than China.

A bigger navy than the next 13 combined.

No. There is no waste in defense spending.
Click to expand...
You're trying too hard with the silliness. The relative size comparisons are garbage and we're doing our services a disservice if they aren't aboslutely and utterly overwhelming.

Gates' issues are with personnel expenses because pay raises have been sizeable lately and the staff sizes are overwhelming including the hordes of massively overpaid civilians.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
Gates: Pentagon must cut overhead, restrain spending - CNN.com

20 x more fighter planes than China.

A bigger navy than the next 13 combined.

No. There is no waste in defense spending.
Click to expand...

I assume that your defintion of, "waste" has resulted from the many insights and experiences which you've personally attained in the military defense of this country.

If so, please tell us the branch and specific area of your service, so that we may accurately thank you - not only for the offering of your expertise as to, "wasteful" defense spending, but far more importantly, for the many other brave and selfless acts which you must have also performed on our behalf.

If you did not serve in the military defense of this nation, please aide our understanding as to how you established that the DOD was being, "wasteful" with their budgeted funds. Next, offer some suggestions as to how such, "waste" might best be curbed. Finally, provide us some insight into your expertise as to the operational needs of our current military, specifically, as it relates to our national defense.

For example, should we decommission a couple of carrier groups, or scrap a few air squadrons - and which ones? Maybe we should have less planes than China, and a smaller Navy than, say, France.

I am betting that you, being a notable liberal, can't answer these questions, because you've never been required to know or experience the cost of providing for our defense, and believe that any amount of defense spending is, well, too much.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
Tenacious D said:
I assume that your defintion of, "waste" has resulted from the many insights and experiences which you've personally attained in the military defense of this country.

If so, please tell us the branch and specific area of your service, so that we may accurately thank you - not only for the offering of your expertise as to, "wasteful" defense spending, but far more importantly, for the many other brave and selfless acts which you must have also performed on our behalf.

If you did not serve in the military defense of this nation, please aide our understanding as to how you established that the DOD was being, "wasteful" with their budgeted funds. Next, offer some suggestions as to how such, "waste" might best be curbed. Finally, provide us some insight into your expertise as to the operational needs of our current military, specifically, as it relates to our national defense.

For example, should we decommission a couple of carrier groups, or scrap a few air squadrons - and which ones? Maybe we should have less planes than China, and a smaller Navy than, say, France.

I am betting that you, being a notable liberal, can't answer these questions, because you've never been required to know or experience the cost of providing for our defense, and believe that any amount of defense spending is, well, too much.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


I've never understood the argument that, in order to be aware of the enormous amount of money that passes through the defense budget and into the pockets of the billionaires with defense contracts, you had to wear a uniform.

That's just stupid.
 
#8
#8
lawgator1 said:
I've never understood the argument that, in order to be aware of the enormous amount of money that passes through the defense budget and into the pockets of the billionaires with defense contracts, you had to wear a uniform.

That's just stupid.
Click to expand...

Well that's defnitely the most important factor in this debate. It's just like the economy. Long-term stability is secondary at best, just make sure these fat cats can't have big bonuses.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
I've never understood the argument that, in order to be aware of the enormous amount of money that passes through the defense budget and into the pockets of the billionaires with defense contracts, you had to wear a uniform.

That's just stupid.
Click to expand...

Conveniently, you've misinterpreted my question.

Succinctly stated, describe the formulation of that standard which you've personally employed to classify DOD's spending as being, "wasteful", specifically, as it relates to that military preparedness which may be reasonably required in both the defense and protection of our national interests.

Hopefully, that clears up your confusion, and your response will be forthcoming.

Here's my predicted outcome - of course, these are predicated upon my entrenched belief that have absolutely no idea as to what is or is not, "wasteful" spending by or for our military, nor either what our reasonably necessary preparedness requires.

1. You launch another red-herring, such as the, "fat cat" defense contractor comment. Of course, I'll simply ignore those as well.

2. In seeking to hide your ignorant misstep, your answer will seek to further obfuscate the issue at hand by reducing it an issue of personal choice, belief or preference. This will be done with a host of ambiguities that cannot be disproven, and which will usually be found in sentences containing phrases such as, "I believe...", "I am of the opinion..." and so forth. Of course, in considering that your original post begs for an array of both tangible and empirical proof - the cost to defend and protect our interests is either at an adequate threshold for the expense which it incurs, or it is not - your attempts to reduce the issue to personal choice or preference will be little more than an admission, though an implicitly stated one, that you are both woefully unqualified and incapable of offering such a stance, neither knowing what is required nor what it should reasonably cost.

So, that's my prediction. Prove me wrong.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
since you actually pride yourself on being factual

Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?"
Click to expand...
 
#11
#11
Tenacious D said:
I assume that your defintion of, "waste" has resulted from the many insights and experiences which you've personally attained in the military defense of this country.
Click to expand...

I assume only those who have been on welfare can comment on it? Also the football forum is going to be dead when only former SEC coaches can comment

and unless you're saying there's not waste in the DoD then your comments are pretty pointless
 
#12
#12
kptvol said:
Well that's defnitely the most important factor in this debate. It's just like the economy. Long-term stability is secondary at best, just make sure these fat cats can't have big bonuses.
Click to expand...


Its not a question of a bonus. Its a question of priorities.

We are in a war that is labor intensive. Boots on the ground matter. Adding to our nuclear submarines or expanding our fleet of long grange bombers is just antiquated in light of the reality of today's world.

Maintain an overwhelming deterrent? Sure. Outmuscle everybody. Absolutely.

But at some point you have to tell the companies with trillion dollar contracts, ok, we've got enough of your Cold War era stuff and right now we need to spend our money on things that will help us win the low intensity type of conflict in which we find ourselves and which probably defines the next 50 years of threats we will realistically face.

Understandably, the fellows who have grown accustomed to wining and dining the decisionmakers, making enormous contributions to them, backdoor hiring them, their families, and their cronies, and in some cases outright paying them off, are going to be a bit miffed.
 
#13
#13
utvolpj said:
I assume only those who have been on welfare can comment on it? Also the football forum is going to be dead when only former SEC coaches can comment

and unless you're saying there's not waste in the DoD then your comments are pretty pointless
Click to expand...

Football and free cheese aren't matters of life and death.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
Its not a question of a bonus. Its a question of priorities.

Well clearly hanging onto the valuable employees shouldn't be a high priority.

We are in a war that is labor intensive. Boots on the ground matter. Adding to our nuclear submarines or expanding our fleet of lon grange bombers is just antiquated in light of the reality of today's world.

Maintain an overwhelming deterrent? Sure. Outmuscle everybody. Absolutely.

But at some point you have to tell the companies with trillion dollar contracts, ok, we've got enough of your Cold War era stuff and right now we need to spend our money on things that will help us win the low intensity type of conflict in which we find ourselves and which probably defines the next 50 years of threats we will realistically face.

Understandably, the fellows who have grown accustomed to wining and dining the decisionmakers, making enormous contributions to them, backdoor hiring them, their families, and their cronies, and in some cases outright paying them off, are going to be a bit miffed.
Click to expand...

Do you struggle to make a living or something? It really seems like financial success pisses you off.
 
#15
#15
kptvol said:
Football and free cheese aren't matters of life and death.
Click to expand...

but evidently to call them wasteful someone actually has to have been involved with them.

How about healthcare? I guess we will leave any comments about that to the VN doctors
 
#16
#16
utvolpj said:
but evidently to call them wasteful someone actually has to have been involved with them.

How about healthcare? I guess we will leave any comments about that to the VN doctors
Click to expand...

Doctors aren't going to be more likely to be killed if we cut healthcare spending.
 
#17
#17
utvolpj said:
I assume only those who have been on welfare can comment on it? Also the football forum is going to be dead when only former SEC coaches can comment
Click to expand...

Could you point me to the line in my post where I offered this failed reasoning?

As you scour it, undoubtedly certain that I said it, pay particular attention to that area where I mentioned that his personal service could have been used to formulate his opinon, but by no means was it the only acceptable criteron, just that which I believed was most likely.

Then, when you realize that I neither said nor implied that personal service was the only means by which to establish a reasoned opinion on the matter, you are welcome to recant your misstatement, of course, once your feeling of smug superiority has evaporated and the flushed feeling of angst which being wrong typically causes to incur, subsides.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
Tenacious D said:
I assume that your defintion of, "waste" has resulted from the many insights and experiences which you've personally attained in the military defense of this country.

If so, please tell us the branch and specific area of your service, so that we may accurately thank you - not only for the offering of your expertise as to, "wasteful" defense spending, but far more importantly, for the many other brave and selfless acts which you must have also performed on our behalf.

If you did not serve in the military defense of this nation, please aide our understanding as to how you established that the DOD was being, "wasteful" with their budgeted funds. Next, offer some suggestions as to how such, "waste" might best be curbed. Finally, provide us some insight into your expertise as to the operational needs of our current military, specifically, as it relates to our national defense.

For example, should we decommission a couple of carrier groups, or scrap a few air squadrons - and which ones? Maybe we should have less planes than China, and a smaller Navy than, say, France.

I am betting that you, being a notable liberal, can't answer these questions, because you've never been required to know or experience the cost of providing for our defense, and believe that any amount of defense spending is, well, too much.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Tenacious D said:
Could you point me to the line in my post where I offered this failed reasoning?

As you scour it, undoubtedly certain that I said it, pay particular attention to that area where I mentioned that his personal service could have been used to formulate his opinon, but by no means was it the only acceptable criteron, just that which I believed was most likely.

Then, when you realize that I neither said nor implied that personal service was the only means by which to establish a reasoned opinion on the matter, you are welcome to recant your misstatement, of course, once your feeling of smug superiority has evaporated and the flushed feeling of angst which being wrong typically causes to incur, subsides.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Your claim in the second post that the first was not arguing that you have to have had military experience ot comment on this issue makes you look really foolish.

Clearly, that was your challenge to me. I point out the silliness of the challenge, and you reply that you didn't make it.

But you did. Clearly.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Its not a question of a bonus. Its a question of priorities.

We are in a war that is labor intensive. Boots on the ground matter. Adding to our nuclear submarines or expanding our fleet of long grange bombers is just antiquated in light of the reality of today's world.

Maintain an overwhelming deterrent? Sure. Outmuscle everybody. Absolutely.

But at some point you have to tell the companies with trillion dollar contracts, ok, we've got enough of your Cold War era stuff and right now we need to spend our money on things that will help us win the low intensity type of conflict in which we find ourselves and which probably defines the next 50 years of threats we will realistically face.

Understandably, the fellows who have grown accustomed to wining and dining the decisionmakers, making enormous contributions to them, backdoor hiring them, their families, and their cronies, and in some cases outright paying them off, are going to be a bit miffed.
Click to expand...

So, because this particular war is, "labor intensive" you assume that they will all be the same? I hate to break this to you, but were we to become engaged in a similiar, "boots on the ground" - only war with the Chinese, we'd be staggeringly overwhelmed, and likely, easily defeated.

Do you ever wonder why we've never fought a war on our own soil - or paused to fathom the enormity of the strategic advantage which such has provided? Why do you think that is (hint: its not that the oceans present some impassable obstacle, nor is it that either Mexico or Canada could serve as any barrier of resistance)?

Luck? We've successfully hidden our location from every other nation? If you'll bother to educate yourself, you'll learn that its most greatly attributed to our ability to make war - both near instantaneous and overwhelmingly - anywhere in the world, wherever its needed. Well, that strategy heavily employs the extensive use of both nuclear submarines and long-range bombers, the very examples of unnecessary spending which you exampled.

Essentially, your argument is that the current DOD budgetary allowance is simply, "too much"....in your unsubstantiated and inexperienced opinion. Just as I mentioned in my initial response.

Perhaps liberals are not the mystical creatures of insight and intellectualism, modern day Gnostics if you will, afterall.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#21
#21
utvolpj said:
pretty funny coming from you. Act like you didn't imply it all you want
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, which line was it again?

Now, considering that both you and LG are looking for it, I'd think it'd be pretty easy to spot.

Perhaps I should be responsible for the erroneous conclusions which your false assumptions lead you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#22
#22
Tenacious D said:
I'm sorry, which line was it again?

Now, considering that both you and LG are looking for it, I'd think it'd be pretty easy to spot.

Perhaps I should be responsible for the erroneous conclusions which your false assumptions lead you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


And here I thought there was no way that you'd make it worse by continuing to deny that you were saying one must have served to have a valid opinion on military issues. Foiled again!
 
#23
#23
I would have zero problem with this if it was actually a matter of putting forth a serious effort to reduce spending. Obama has shown no propensity toward this end to date and has actually championed government waste IMO. This move is purely political, had he really wanted to make a dent in spending he would have included serious cuts in entitlement spending among other things.
 
#24
#24
He isn't just selling out the military, he's selling out the American people.

barack-obama-hates-america.jpg


The 2011 Defense Budget: Inadequate and Full of Inconsistencies

b2375_chart1.ashx


Not to mention the economy is shrinking also.
 
#25
#25
why do we need a military, obama will be able to simply will them to be peaceful, and if not, LG can go call them racist and close minded

It is written Barack 3:16
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top