July 01, 2010
— DrewM The bad news isÂ…itÂ’s from the defense budget and will essentially hollow out our military.
The recommendations are from the Sustainable Defense Task Force (I do not think those first words mean what they think they mean) which is an ad hoc group of think tanks and legislators led by Barney Frank andÂ… Ron Paul. Frank and Paul together? What could go wrong?
Just the gutting of the military.
The Air Force must retire six fighter air wings equivalents, and at the same time build 301 fewer F-35 fighters. The nuclear bomber force will be completely eliminated in the name of unilateral disarmament—the B-1 and B-2 and B-52 and other bombers will still be able to drop bombs, but their nuclear weapon wiring and controls will simply be removed. Procurement of the new refueling tanker and the C-17 cargo aircraft will be canceled. Directed energy beam research and other advanced missile and space warfare defense projects will also be eliminated or curtailed.Active duty Army personnel will be slashed from 562,400 to 360,000. That includes elimination of about five active-component brigade combat teams (the report is not exactly). The Army will also suffer a myriad of other cuts, including closure of overseas bases.
The Marine Corps would be cut by 30%, from 202,000 to 145,000, and the other funding cuts planned for the Corps mean the United States will not be able to mount a major amphibious landing on any hostile shore. Marine Corps programs to be killed include the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
Granted, a lot of this is pie-in-the-sky thinking from liberals, itÂ’s their wish list but itÂ’s not like they donÂ’t have a friend in a very high place. Remember this Obama video from the campaign? In his heart, he thinks theyÂ’re right. So while this may well be the leftÂ’s outer marker, it gives you an idea of what weÂ’re up against in the coming years.
And if you donÂ’t think it could happen, well it happened in the 70Â’s and itÂ’s already happening now as the Air Force considers retiring its entire B-1 Bomber fleet. ItÂ’s kind of ironic that the poster child for the Reagan defense build up may well wind up being emblematic of the Obama draw down (though I guess the F-22 will be remember as the beginning of the end).
The Navy is already seeing the disastrous effects of not spending enough and improperly managing the training and maintenance resources they do have.
An independent probe into the state of the U.S. Navy's surface force has found widespread, systemic dysfunction in its manning, readiness and training, and repudiates much of the service's high-level decision-making in the last decade.The report - commissioned by Adm. John Harvey, the Fleet Forces commander, and produced by a seven-member panel led by retired Vice Adm. Phillip Balisle that included two serving rear admirals - warns that unless the Navy mends its ways, it will continue to see surface ships condemned in inspections and sail unready to fight.
Â…
How did it happen? Driven by top-level pressure to be as efficient as possible, Navy leaders in the early 2000s made a series of interrelated decisions to cut sailors, reform training, "streamline" fleet maintenance and take other steps in keeping with the philosophy then en vogue of "running the Navy like a business."
As the reality of budget cuts begin to take hold and Obama laughingly threatens to “call the bluff” of his spending critics, we may well see some support for defense cuts from the right.
Into the breach steps Sarah Palin to say not so fast.
There's growing concern among Republicans -- and especially among the pro-defense neoconservative wing of the party -- that national-security spending, which is under a level of scrutiny and pressure not seen since the end of the Cold War, could fall victim to the anti-establishment,
anti-spending agenda of the Tea Party movement. Palin, as the unofficial leader of that movement and its most prominent celebrity, is moving to carve out such funding from any drives to cut overall government expenditures.There's a sense among GOP insiders that she is not only the perfect figure to make the case, but she's also the only one who can pull it off.
Â…
Palin's drive to lead the charge against defense cuts on the right was on display in a June 27 speech at "Freedom Fest," a conservative gathering in Norfolk, VA, where she sent a clear message to Republicans that deficit reduction can't come at the expense of the military.
"Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny," she said. "We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay."
Palin also directly took on Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, challenging his drive to reign in procurement spending and reevaluate the need for certain huge weapons systems and platforms.
"Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy. He said we have to ‘ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.' He went on to ask, ‘Do we really need ... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?'" Palin said. "Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do, because we must."
Even if the Republicans win the House and/or Senate later this year, thereÂ’s going to be a lot of hard and ugly choices to be made. Yes, a lot of them are because of Republican overspending in years past but ObamaÂ’s spending spree has turned a problem into an existential crisis.
The Republicans are going to be in a similar position to the Torry/LibDem coalition in the UK, the left has baked a time bomb into the budget cake and now itÂ’s going to be up to the opposition to defuse it and take the heat for politically unpopular choices. The right is going to be in the awkward position of defending a lot of defense spending while clamoring for other cuts.
The first step in that process is laying out an honest set of military requirements and building a budget around them (not the other way around) and inserting a dose of reality into the debate about the size of the defense budget relative to other spending.
Correct as that position maybe, itÂ’s going to be a politically difficult path to walk.
Posted by: DrewM at
01:18 PM
| Comments (158)
Post contains 1164 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: Dan at July 01, 2010 01:20 PM (1jzSs)
Posted by: Andy at July 01, 2010 01:20 PM (5Rurq)
Posted by: Truman North at July 01, 2010 01:21 PM (e8YaH)
Posted by: Dan at July 01, 2010 01:21 PM (1jzSs)
That is beyond insane. Please tell me this will not come to pass.
You know how cities get tax increases to pass? Threaten to cut police and fire.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 01, 2010 01:22 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at July 01, 2010 01:23 PM (eNxMU)
Posted by: maddogg at July 01, 2010 01:24 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: President O' at July 01, 2010 01:25 PM (xO+6C)
Retiring the entire B1 bomber fleet is frightening.
That is beyond insane. Please tell me this will not come to pass.
This is our concern, Dude.
Posted by: Brandt at July 01, 2010 01:25 PM (8fr2h)
Posted by: Drew in MO at July 01, 2010 01:27 PM (bqKDG)
We simply don't need those military assets anymore. The international arena sees it is no match for President Obama, an 11-dimensional chess player mocking the mere checker-playing leaders of the world.
And let me tell you something - in times like these, it's much cheaper to procure chess boards than B-52s. You can bet on that because Sheriff Joe said so.
Posted by: Joe Biden at July 01, 2010 01:29 PM (XxAYS)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2010 01:30 PM (fLHQe)
Posted by: td at July 01, 2010 01:30 PM (w7TI0)
The nuclear bomber force will be completely eliminated in the name of unilateral disarmament
We surrender!
Posted by: U.S.A. at July 01, 2010 01:31 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: WalrusRex at July 01, 2010 01:31 PM (xxgag)
Posted by: Sponge at July 01, 2010 01:32 PM (UK9cE)
Umm, sure. But you know she doesn't write those facebook posts herself, right?
I mean, I like the woman, but how she articulates on facebook is a night and day difference on how she comes across on Fox.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 01, 2010 01:32 PM (pLTLS)
Google: Ron Paul Make Love Not War
seriously, story from last summer in which he appealed to the far-left. Basically saying he wanted to gut the Military like they do(or the "empire" if you will) and that the Money that would be 'saved' could go to fund their National Healthcare....until we 'come to our senses on Liberty' of course.
I hate this faggot.
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 01:33 PM (DFDtC)
I love his economic policies, but I think his foreign policies would, for the most part, be a disaster.
Still, our military has gotten HUGE; I have a feeling there is an awful lot of waste and that doesn't help the guys in the field doing the shooting.
Like any bureaucracy, they will attempt to grow and consume more funding to protect themselves.
Posted by: blindside at July 01, 2010 01:33 PM (x7g7t)
Posted by: ziptie at July 01, 2010 01:33 PM (UdYT0)
Posted by: U.S.S. Yorktown at July 01, 2010 01:34 PM (sYEpI)
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 01:34 PM (DFDtC)
Posted by: Paulbot at July 01, 2010 01:35 PM (bqKDG)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at July 01, 2010 01:35 PM (2pxId)
But they mean precisely what they want us to think they mean.
Posted by: Ten at July 01, 2010 01:35 PM (15KR4)
Posted by: Twirling Big Sur Hippie at July 01, 2010 01:35 PM (efq5Y)
Ron Paul is consistent - this doesn't surprise me one bit, because one of his policies is that our military is too big and we're involved in ways we never should have been.
Dammit, and here I was going to say "in before the Paultards show up to defend the idiot crank."
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 01, 2010 01:36 PM (plsiE)
The best thing to do at this point, is go ahead a let the DemonRats keep absolute power.
I know is sounds wrong, but think about it!
The only way the population is going to understand what has happend to their country, and to understand what is happending to their country is to truley expose the Democrats.
Keep them in power, and force them to take responsibility for their share of this mess. Of course, that ultimately means economic collapse, and the probable loss of our freedom, but how many times are we going to get fooled by this game the Democrats have played against us over the years?
Maybe once the population realizes who the Democrats actually are, maybe they will actually do something about it, and we can get back to the America we once knew.
Posted by: Jimi at July 01, 2010 01:36 PM (fqxV7)
Our Military was CUT IN HALF during the 1990's
Spending as a % of the Budget is the inverse of what it was during say the JFK yrs. That is how far we've come and FAGGOTS like Ron Liar Paul work with the Left to Further Cut the Military given his worldview he shares with them that the USA is the "Evil Empire". Just like his anarchist/austrian Idol, Murray Rothbard.
There is a good reason Buckely Blackballed Rothbard out of National Review, these people are insane
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 01:36 PM (DFDtC)
Granted, a lot of this is pie-in-the-sky thinking from liberals, itÂ’s their wish list but itÂ’s not like they donÂ’t have a friend in a very high place.
Soros?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 01, 2010 01:37 PM (3axwL)
Hmm. It seems to a simple hick like me that every time we take Lady Liberty's shotgun away and throw it down the damn well some assholes somewhere start a war and we have to spend years and lives getting back up to speed.
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 01:37 PM (JR2D9)
"The Air Force must...build 301 fewer F-35 fighters."
That'll do wonders for the per-unit costs...
Retiring the B-1 isn't quite as bad as it sounds. We'll still have B-2's...for now...
Posted by: reason at July 01, 2010 01:38 PM (wEYaf)
I mean, I like the woman, but how she articulates on facebook is a night and day difference on how she comes across on Fox.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 01, 2010 05:32 PM (pLTLS)
I write MUCH better than I speak extemporaneously - I'm sure that most people who heard me answer questions "off the cuff" would think that I'm an airheaded twit. However, when I write, I have time to think about what I am going to say, and I have the luxury of editing things to the point at which they make sense and sound good.
I would much rather have someone running this country who has substance behind what he/she says, rather than someone who sounds good in a Q&A format, or who makes a pretty speech.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at July 01, 2010 01:40 PM (2pxId)
Posted by: Rand Paul at July 01, 2010 01:40 PM (PC0X9)
I love his economic policies, but I think his foreign policies would, for the most part, be a disaster.
You cannot divorce those two realms from one another. Period. End of discussion. And if you are a gold bug--you're an idiot.
So exactly which of our treaty obligations do we give up to allow us to live up to those remaining under this "plan"? Korea? Japan? NATO? Alaska? Kansas?
The defense budget is not the cause of our budget woes. It is entitlements and since lefties are so goddamned sure the Europeans are right about everything, let's ask them if slashing their defense budgets brought their spending under control.
Willful stupidity. It's what's for dinner.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 01, 2010 01:40 PM (FVu4D)
Posted by: Drew in MO at July 01, 2010 01:42 PM (bqKDG)
Posted by: B. H. Obama at July 01, 2010 01:44 PM (AZGON)
Now, we have a hangar full of them - the entire facility is being revamped to accommodate the V-22 and F-35 programs, all of the other weapons platforms we work on are either being phased out or cut back because they're 30 to 40 years old and are considered "obsolete".
I mention all of this because I firmly believe that - while a certain amount of trimming of the defense budget is bound to happen - there ain't no way the sponsors of these programs are going to give up their babies without a fight. In my experience (and we've gone through a few BRAC scares), both sides tend to over-bid; one side proposing cuts that are far more than even they would be comfortable with, the other countering with a tiny fraction of what they could actually live with. It does worry me that Bawney Fwank has his delicate little hand in this - and I've never been a big Ron Paul fan - but a course of watchful waiting is in order. In other words, I don't see them getting quite this big of a bite out of Defense.
Posted by: antisocialist at July 01, 2010 01:45 PM (Rwudm)
Either we defend America or Russia and China will.
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 01:45 PM (JR2D9)
Wonderful, let's cut our military in a time of war/global instability and also at a time of massive unemployment (hey, it does provide an outlet for some of the job seekers).
But mortgage vouchers and food stamps for everybody!!!!!!
The Republicans will go along with it -- they want to be re-elected more than they want to do what is right for the country. The populace will be all for it -- because they're stupid sheep who like their bennies and don't think anything bad could ever happen to them. The folks in the military will once again pay the price -- I'm telling you; time for the military to threaten to go on strike; let's see how the good citizens and their pandering politicians feel when there really isn't anybody keeping them safe in their beds at night. I'm sick of it all.
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 01:45 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: GarandFan at July 01, 2010 01:45 PM (6mwMs)
Posted by: td at July 01, 2010 01:45 PM (w7TI0)
Posted by: CDR M at July 01, 2010 05:31 PM (5I8G0)
Death to America. Shorter term, partying on the backs of taxpayers.
Posted by: NC Ref at July 01, 2010 01:46 PM (sA88b)
Oh, and you're a fool if you think this is the outside, pie in the sky, very end of their wish list. This is just the f*cking starting point.
Posted by: Dang Straights at July 01, 2010 01:46 PM (fx8sm)
Build an aircraft carrier group, you employ 3 million people directly and indirectly for three years, and that the end, get a mighty big stick to whack in the Persian Gulf to keep oil prices down.
Plus, Defense Spending is unique in that it is the only spending by government that is not 100% hostile to employing White men. Since they are needed to draw up the engineering plans, do the skilled labor, etc. Not too much call for Lawyers who are Lesbians of Color or somesuch.
Increasing military spending (the FT called for it in Britain) also subsidizes R&D in a way nothing else can, particularly educational efforts. You can turn out engineers but if there are no jobs they go into finance or something. When the Financial Times calls for military spending, even SWPL get it.
Military Spending -- its economic recovery plus R&D.
Posted by: whiskey at July 01, 2010 01:48 PM (L03mw)
Posted by: KG at July 01, 2010 01:49 PM (S8TF5)
Posted by: Obama's Advocate at July 01, 2010 01:50 PM (VmtE9)
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 01:52 PM (DFDtC)
It may be pie-in-the sky but there will always be enough squishy RINOs to go along with them to get a lot of it, if not most of it through.
The commies always do this when they take power. Kill 90% of the programs that the federal government is actually authorized to do in order to save a few nickles and then spend tens of billions on socialist programs that they are not authorized to do.
We have to get these assholes out of power. We can stop this stuff with out destroying defense. First if Oabma is not going to be impeached we need to get out of the ME because as long as he is CIC we are only killing American to maintain PR for him. He has no intention of winning.
Second we need to kill very socialist program there is except SS and Medicare. Those would be phased out.
Then we need to enact tax cuts to increase the supply.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2010 01:53 PM (6taRI)
Also the copy machine is broke and it won't be fixed until December.
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 01:53 PM (JR2D9)
This is like some punk making sure his friends are there to hold him back while he's threatening to kick somebody's ass. The left wants to say they would make all these defense cuts but the war-mongering Repubs are stopping them. So they are waiting until right before an election where they know they'll get crushed to unveil these cuts. They are trying to turn out the base to make the upcoming rout less of a rout. This shows they are giving up on the moderates for the election.
Posted by: huh at July 01, 2010 01:53 PM (+ABdJ)
One week the focus is on the gulf, then DADT, then jobs, then immigration, then cap and trade, then golf, then.....
That is a filthy lie! Obama's focus is always on golf, and those other, lesser matters are left to his minions.
Posted by: Obama's Advocate at July 01, 2010 01:53 PM (VmtE9)
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 01:55 PM (JR2D9)
Posted by: Alex at July 01, 2010 01:58 PM (ifK+p)
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 01:58 PM (DFDtC)
Posted by: CDR M at July 01, 2010 05:58 PM (5I8G0)
No, but they damn sure factored in theirs.
Posted by: antisocialist at July 01, 2010 01:59 PM (Rwudm)
Paul was lying about our Defense Budget adn the "Cost of Empire" during the 2008 election and still uses the same lies when he speaks to his cultist and press on this. Never being refuted
http://tinyurl.com/32vhoe
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 02:00 PM (DFDtC)
One week the focus is on the gulf, then DADT, then jobs, then immigration, then cap and trade, then golf, then.....
It would still be focused LIKE A LASERtm on the economy except that he doesn't like directed energy weapons, so they're using one of those plastic school protractors instead.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 01, 2010 02:01 PM (FVu4D)
Posted by: Conrgressional Democrat Majority at July 01, 2010 02:01 PM (AZGON)
Those Facebook posts just upset me so much. Why does she use all those big words I can't understand? It's so uncool.
Posted by: Person of Stupid at July 01, 2010 02:01 PM (sAwen)
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 02:02 PM (DFDtC)
@55
Whiskey,
I agree, and that's why they hate Reagan so much, because Reagan was never who they say he was. He took a strategy of the left, and put a Right Wingers twist on it, and it worked so well, it scared the left into believing that if they did not attempt to make the population beleive that America was an Imperialist nation, they would lose the debate so badly the Democrat party would collapse and never regain any strength.
You can't make anyone believe that America is an Imperialist Nation without attacking demonizing the military.
Reagan's Military Keyensian Spending is where we got the Tech Bubble from and allowed Clinton to sell us down the road with NAFTA.
Posted by: Jimi at July 01, 2010 02:02 PM (fqxV7)
You'll not find anyone that loathes Frank and Paul more than I. But throwing the faggot thing around every post makes you sound silly or like a kilgore-style plant yelling the n-word.
Just giving you a word to the wise.
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 02:04 PM (JR2D9)
________________
Remember when fighters weren't going to need guns anymore? I don't buy the pilotless thing, either.
Posted by: Anachronda at July 01, 2010 02:04 PM (3K4hn)
Murray Rothbard, who Ron Paul and the Lew Rockwell cult IDOLIZE, also absolutely hated Ronald Reagan's guts and called him a Warmonger and repeated all the Leftist Lies just like they are today. The same alliances are still alive and well.
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 02:04 PM (DFDtC)
Reagan's Military Keyensian Spending is where we got the Tech Bubble from and allowed Clinton to sell us down the road with NAFTA.
Yes, because there was, in fact, no Soviet Union at all. Just a fairy tale.
Go away nitwit. Adults are talking.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 01, 2010 02:04 PM (FVu4D)
Posted by: the Lame Duck Session at July 01, 2010 02:05 PM (AZGON)
sifty - this is Ace, and a post on Pinko's gutting the military, one of them being a Fag literally, the other metaphorically. deal with it, they are faggots.
Borat had Paul's number.
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 02:06 PM (DFDtC)
Yup.
Also, enough with the "faggot" stuff. Saying it doesn't make you any tougher, it just makes you sound like an 8th-grader.
Posted by: pep at July 01, 2010 02:07 PM (0K3p3)
Totally OT (and maybe it's already been covered), but the new numbers came out for the high-risk insurance pool under Obamacare. Surprise - people are going to have to pay through the nose, and the government may not have enough money to subsidize everyone who wants to be on the program!
Lib heads to start exploding in 5...4...3...
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at July 01, 2010 02:09 PM (2pxId)
@81
Circa,
That's the point, it was killing two birds with one stone! No need to be calling names if I'm miles ahead of you, your a little slow on the uptake when it comes to economics, but not a problem, I'm O.K. with it!
Posted by: Jimi at July 01, 2010 02:10 PM (fqxV7)
It's not fair that I should have to pay to educate someone's kids when the odds that I am able to procreate are so unlikely.
Posted by: Person of Stupid at July 01, 2010 02:11 PM (sAwen)
I just ran into a libtard "friend" who giddily informed me I should be excited for our Marine son because "the president is going to end the war really soon!!!" She's still drinking the Koolaid and still has Barry's effin' bumper sticker on her aging clown car.
I put her some actual knowledge and she made a sad, frowny face at me and led her unicorn across the parking lot.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 01, 2010 02:13 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 02:16 PM (JR2D9)
The nuclear bomber force will be completely eliminated in the name of unilateral disarmament—the B-1 and B-2 and B-52 and other bombers will still be able to drop bombs, but their nuclear weapon wiring and controls will simply be removed.
Removing the wiring, keeping the bomber ... seems like the philosophy of pacifists rather than the math of accountants.
These are people who crumble in a frank, honest debate. God knows we need that debate loudly and often.
Posted by: Cincinnatus at July 01, 2010 02:18 PM (r60xu)
We really do need a better class of troll here.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 01, 2010 02:21 PM (UOM48)
He hates educating others kids. Why am I forced to educate others kids? I want them out on the streets and in the playgrounds where I can capture panty shots of them with my cell phone.
Posted by: Person of Supid at July 01, 2010 02:21 PM (sAwen)
Posted by: Jean at July 01, 2010 02:22 PM (CPefM)
Posted by: jp at July 01, 2010 02:24 PM (DFDtC)
100 billion for health care ?
Now , I've smoked some good shit in my day but I want some of that stuff you have .
Wait , it's raygun , ain't it ?
Posted by: awkward davies at July 01, 2010 02:25 PM (B4e7Q)
ÔÇÊ ÓÚæÃà ãäÊÃì ÃáÇ ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ ÊæÈÃßÇÊ ÃáÇ ÕæÑ ãÇÓäÌÑ
Posted by: m7pq at July 01, 2010 02:25 PM (o/LQe)
Posted by: AngelEm at July 01, 2010 02:25 PM (I2Yog)
Wait, are you saying the Dept. of Education should be abolished? Hell yea!
Posted by: KG at July 01, 2010 02:27 PM (S8TF5)
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 02:29 PM (JR2D9)
Posted by: the peanut gallery at July 01, 2010 02:30 PM (NurK6)
Their roots go all the way back into 1800's. Today, they are confined to a few fools - amplified by the internet.
Posted by: Jean at July 01, 2010 02:31 PM (CPefM)
Let's keep killing terrorists and all the people that want to rape, kill, and enslave us?
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 02:31 PM (JR2D9)
Posted by: the peanut gallery at July 01, 2010 02:33 PM (NurK6)
Me paying for moron kids education needs to be abolished. Why do I have to pay for other kids educations when mine so clearly failed me?
Posted by: Person of Stupid at July 01, 2010 02:35 PM (sAwen)
@104,
Peanut,
That's fine, but that only works if three things go along with it!
1.) When we leave you lock down the border, absolutely control immigration based on what Americam buisness needs for wrokers, instead of based on "Multi-Culturalism"
2.) When we have to go back, which it is a pipe dream to beleive that we won't have to go back, we go with all guns a blazing instead of Pussy-Footing around with Rules of Engagement desinged for the playground instead of for a Battlefield.
3.) Quickly figure out how to get away from being so dependent on foreign oil
None of the politicians on either side of the isle have the will to do any of these requirements.
Posted by: Jimi at July 01, 2010 02:36 PM (fqxV7)
Posted by: ziptie at July 01, 2010 02:36 PM (UdYT0)
Posted by: td at July 01, 2010 02:37 PM (w7TI0)
Later, I will drive to Washington and capture Barney Frank with my lasso of truth, then "interrogate" him.
Posted by: Person of Stupid at July 01, 2010 02:38 PM (sAwen)
I'll assume you are on the level with your question, so I'll answer that way. I like a good gay joke as much as the next guy, just like I like a good joke at my expense. But endless repetition of an insult isn't funny or clever.
83sifty - this is Ace, and a post on Pinko's gutting the military, one of them being a Fag literally, the other metaphorically. deal with it, they are faggots.
I don't see the humor.
Posted by: pep at July 01, 2010 02:39 PM (0K3p3)
Rasputin, it is not our fault you will never know the joy of bringing a living blessing into the world. Or the touch of a woman that isn't crying or unconscious.
Leave the kids out of it.
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 02:40 PM (JR2D9)
If I hear about this damn healthcare thing one more time...
Military folks are going to be paying out the wahzoo from their paychecks to help finance the stupid frakking ohealthcare, plus this report states that the military personnel and their families can expect cuts in their benefits, healthcare, and pensions. Probably so the welfare queens and amnestied illegals can have their precious healthcare that lefties soooo believe in (because in the grand scheme of things pandering and pillaging is all that is really important).
If you have never been on or had a family member have to avail themselves of the services of TriCare or the VA...the military folks might as well treat themselves or just try to get to a good vetrinarian for care....this is fucking bullshit. Fucking. goddamn. bullshit.
Once again the troops get treated like dirt (and their families) so the special interest classes and their spoiled lefty patrons can live large -- fuck this!
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 02:41 PM (5/yRG)
Since the Department of Education has exaclty zero to do with education and everything to do with being a bloated federal bureaucracy...yes, I'd say I'd start there with Energy being right behind. Ag needs to be about ten percent of its current size.
And then we means test Social Security and index it and all federal pay to inflation (and, yeah that means cuts if prices go down).
Abolish the capital gains tax on domestic job investments.
Also--everybody--EVERYBODY has to pay a minimum income tax. That zero tax burden crap is what resulted in this catastrophe of an administration.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 01, 2010 02:45 PM (FVu4D)
1. I am as much more more anti-immigration as you could ever be. I don't think that anyone should be allowed in until we have a chance to assimilate the current population - a 30 year moratorium, at least.
2. I'm all in favor of American troops acting in American interests. I WISH we had seized control of the oil fields and made Iraq work for us the way liberals accuse us of.
3. Oil is just one form of energy. If I still had faith in America's political elites, I wouldn't be worried at all. Instead, I see a an economic reality being turned into a political battle. I'm all for oil importation and I know that "alternative energy" is a joke, but at some level we need to mediate windmills in California versus sanctions on Libya.
Posted by: the peanut gallery at July 01, 2010 02:46 PM (NurK6)
108 Hey asshole, those kids of mine that you "helped educate"?
Two serve in the military now and the rest will follow -- protecting your lame ass.
Tell you what -- you don't have to pay to educate my kids, and my kids in turn don't protect you, how's that for a deal?
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 02:48 PM (5/yRG)
You guys are pikers. As I posted early, get rid of ALL the socialist programs 100% except SS and Medicare. Those get phased out over a short time frame.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2010 02:48 PM (6taRI)
I agree. And military also. If Russia invades we'll just do like we did back in the colonial days with the British. Red Dawn, let the people handle it. The government sucks.
Posted by: Rasputin at July 01, 2010 02:49 PM (sAwen)
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2010 02:50 PM (6taRI)
Deal. I can take care of myself. Mom just went to the store and bought Strawberry Poptarts, so I'm good with food and for defense I have some ninja throwing stars.
Posted by: Person of Stupid at July 01, 2010 02:50 PM (sAwen)
Posted by: AngelEm at July 01, 2010 02:50 PM (I2Yog)
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2010 02:50 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 02:51 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 02:54 PM (5/yRG)
@118,
Peanut,
Windmills do not provide fuel for Airplanes, Cargo Ships/Trains, Semi-Trucks, Plastics which the by far the highest demands for the oil we use, and if we don't have it we go into economic collapse, and there is no clear solution anywhere....YET!
We gave up on Afghanistan once already, look where it got us! We are not fighting there because we think it's cool, the original plan was to make it work in American National Interests.
At this point...who knows what Obama's real agenda for the situation really is, but I'm quite skeptical!
Posted by: Jimi at July 01, 2010 02:55 PM (fqxV7)
Good thing you voted for the guy who ballooned it by 30% in just over a year.
Posted by: You Really Are A Dumb Fuck, Raykon at July 01, 2010 02:55 PM (zGrf/)
Posted by: 3rd Lt. Raydouche at July 01, 2010 02:58 PM (JR2D9)
Posted by: Person of Supid at July 01, 2010 03:01 PM (sAwen)
I think you have the terms devils advocate and annoying shit-stain one-trick-pony swapped in your brain.
No charge for the clue.
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 03:04 PM (JR2D9)
Well how freaking noble of you!
Here's a bit more of my "silliness":
history has shown that it is never a good idea to draw down one's military in the face of political/economic/social instability -- you usually end up behind the ball, and you usually end up paying in blood; history has also shown that the military has never hurt an economy so much as social programs do -- the military is a known, time tested entity: it puts people to work and it spurs R&D programs that often crossover into civilian life, social programs have so far not managed to break even in that regard; history has show us that it is not a good idea in times of socio-economic upheaval and political corruption and ineptitude to go messing with a professional military force -- it just isn't smart to frak with the legions too godawful much.
But by all means...go right ahead; after all, I'm silly and not ever so wise as you are dipshit.
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 03:07 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: dr kill at July 01, 2010 03:08 PM (w9bVp)
How about more classes where they teach kids to put condoms on cucumbers? I found that one useful because I often use a cucumber for secret butthole pleasuring.
mMmmmmm! Now that's some stimulus I can "get behind"!
Posted by: Person of Supid at July 01, 2010 03:10 PM (sAwen)
Rasputin,
Do you know what the term "Dip'em if you've got e'm" means?
Just get down on your knees, tilt you head back, open your mouth, and close your eyes......Trust me.......It's fun!
Posted by: Jimi at July 01, 2010 03:12 PM (fqxV7)
135 Oh really? Where do you think we get some of the R&D started to go sending men to Mars? (and how does sending men to Mars have any tangible benefits for people here on Earth?)
By all means though -- I would much rather build and repair infrastructure and even send people to Mars than pay for this stinking healthcare boondoggle or support the bloated Dept. of Ed, or the bloated EPA, or any other of those social welfare programs that people seem to have such a hard on for. (and quite unlike them, I am very willing to see cuts in unnecessary military spending or see the DoD spend their money more wisely and well)
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 03:13 PM (5/yRG)
And the hippies like you will be bitching about us going to Mars too.
You people hate everything the USA does first, well, or without an apology to the gaddamned spotted owls.
Posted by: sifty at July 01, 2010 03:20 PM (JR2D9)
Two serve in the military now and the rest will follow -- protecting your lame ass.
Tell you what -- you don't have to pay to educate my kids, and my kids in turn don't protect you, how's that for a deal?
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 06:48 PM (5/yRG)
+100000
Posted by: antisocialist at July 01, 2010 03:21 PM (Rwudm)
NONE of the socialist welfare schemes that the current federal government spends so much money on is authorized by the Constitution.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2010 03:22 PM (6taRI)
@137
Jane,
See....What Rasputin doesn't seem to understand is that our founding documents actually support the idea of a military, where some of the other sociallists programs are pipe dreams of bleeding hearts.
Also, he fails to realize the economic benefits we have recieved from military spending. We can all probably agree that there is some military spending we can cut, but with the future economic situation we face, you could cut the military spending to zero, and it will barely make a dent.
We need economic growth in the private sector, and we better figure it quickly or this entire conversation won't matter when the dust settles.
Posted by: Jimi at July 01, 2010 03:23 PM (fqxV7)
Billions and billions and billions...it won't get cut, though. It's a piece of shit, but it's someone's very special piece of shit...
Posted by: antisocialist at July 01, 2010 03:25 PM (Rwudm)
Posted by: Jean at July 01, 2010 03:28 PM (CPefM)
Posted by: CoolCzech at July 01, 2010 03:33 PM (tJjm/)
No new tanker fleet? Are they nucking futs? Those KC-135 tankers are all around 20 years or more old!
Budget airlines have newer aircraft that that!
The only thing worse than the fucking Republicans are the fucking Democrats.
Posted by: memomachine at July 01, 2010 03:37 PM (MwCol)
Posted by: brak at July 01, 2010 03:47 PM (W5NBA)
exactly, but there doesn't seem to be a damn thing we can do about it. Once govt has the power and control, it will only grow larger , more intrusive, and farther beyond what it was supposed to be.
Posted by: brak at July 01, 2010 03:50 PM (W5NBA)
No new tanker fleet? Are they nucking futs? Those KC-135 tankers are all around 20 years or more old! - memomachine
Try "over 45 years old". Well, if they get rid of the strategic bomber force and its mission, we really don't need any tankers, do we?
Agreed, on the whole "next fighter will me unmanned", is frankly poppy cock.
The way our industrial base is hemorraging, I don't know if we can sustain our technology edge much longer anyways.
Posted by: Bawney Fwank at July 01, 2010 04:04 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: BuddyPC at July 01, 2010 04:28 PM (nSkOL)
141 Yeah, and what the dumbass also probably thinks is that mighty, projected EU military would come to our rescue...which 1)I'm not sure I could handle that sort of "rescue"; and 2)even if it did turn out to be worth a shit, I doubt they'd be our allies anymore than they are now (in fact, I'd put a bigger bet on just the opposite, given the way they think of us).
Well...my husband and I lived through the dreary, yet hopeful years just after the wonderful Carter era -- so I guess my kids can live through this; I suppose I should be grateful that only two have to live through Carter military 2.0. I really hate politicians and the socialist welfare state they've created, just to make sure that's apparent.
Like the song says: "I We Need a Hero"
Posted by: unknown jane at July 01, 2010 04:29 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Carnivore at July 01, 2010 04:47 PM (DyuqI)
Hey, 52% of the country voted for national suicide.
Start planning on how to rebuild from the ashes.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 01, 2010 04:48 PM (kmEfr)
@23: "What IS the long term strategy?"
Islam-friendly, internationalist socialist state. The proposed cuts are in line with that goal.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 01, 2010 04:50 PM (kmEfr)
@146: "The only thing worse than the fucking Republicans are the fucking Democrats."
Sad, but true.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 01, 2010 05:06 PM (kmEfr)
Posted by: tangonine at July 01, 2010 05:36 PM (C8Pcc)
Posted by: Don Knotts at July 01, 2010 05:51 PM (Vc/xe)
Posted by: B+rry Ob+owmao at July 01, 2010 08:35 PM (0ZAb5)
How did it happen? Driven by top-level pressure to be as efficient as possible, Navy leaders in the early 2000s made a series of interrelated decisions to cut sailors, reform training, "streamline" fleet maintenance and take other steps in keeping with the philosophy then en vogue of "running the Navy like a business."
Point #1: Bush set this up
Point#2: Republicans in Congress are complicit
Point#3
emocRATS are merely bayoneting the wounded after the battle
I am sickened by our 'leaders'. Traitors is a closer appellation.
Posted by: torabora at July 01, 2010 08:41 PM (0ZAb5)
Posted by: Lee at July 02, 2010 01:08 AM (/gY4D)
cuts planned for the Corps mean the United States will not be able to mount a major amphibious landing on any hostile shore
So...why retain the Corps at all?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at July 02, 2010 05:22 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: Dw Pepper at July 02, 2010 07:15 PM (BNkGy)
island country. wholesale laptop battery Shuvalov is believed to visit the Russian island construction
Posted by: cheap laptop battery at December 13, 2010 03:53 PM (tHIrp)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.172 seconds, 286 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Drew in MO at July 01, 2010 01:20 PM (bqKDG)