"Horses and Bayonets"

[Steelplate]

I think and maybe hope the army has given up the bayonet, it may have been a great tactic during the Civil War and maybe even after but like many military tactics and weapons it becomes obsolete.

Not really...as mudwhistle mentioned either in this thread or one of the OTHER "horses and bayonet" threads.... the modern day bayonet isn't like your grandfather's. Think of a top notch survival knife that can be attached to a rifle. Versatile tool and a welcomed one....

But that really wasn't the point Obama was making.....and they know that. They are just looking to take shit out of context....kind of like '"you didn't build that".

 

[Nightson]

This topic was a long read for an otherwise boring night.

I've no love for the President. That said, I see no reason beyond petty squabbling, to put words in the man's mouth.

Bayonets. We have 'em. They remain in service. Blood makes the green grass grow. A knife is one hell of weapon in the right hands, and my opinion of the blade on the old M9 remains very low.

If a two front world war ever breaks out again, I'd feel safer with more ships despite the cost.

These days the military paradigm is all about Force Multipliers--be they special forces units or ultra hi-tech weapons systems, guidance systems or lighter, faster armored vehicles. Again, I'd feel safer riding in an M113 versus a Stryker. I'd feel safer with an armored brigade of armored vehicles circa 1992 at my side, than with a division of wheeled armored hybrids. So what if a wheeled armored vehicle can be more easily transported--it's just going to get destroyed faster, the faster you get it there.

I think our defense dollars would be better spent on redundant or back up systems for use when GPS satellites get shot down and computerized systems get hacked or fried.

Unfortunately, the lack of foreign invasions on U.S. soil is a result of maintaining an excessively large and expensive conventional force with which to keep the fighting off our shores. Breaking eggs worldwide and overspending your tax dollars on defense is the name of the game. Otherwise, you're stuck with a smaller, faster, higher tech force that can strike fast but cannot hold ground against nor repel a conventional division sized enemy force. Boots on the ground and lot's of them, or hulls on the sea, we need 'em.

 

[JoeB131]

I am not sure what Willard was thinking last night, but I do believe he punched Barry's ticket to a second term. I see a respected pollster with Virginia in the Obama column now...

why's that Virginia is a ship yard state

So? Are you suggesting that our bloated defense budget is SUPPOSED to be propping up jobs in Virginia? Didn't Romney JUST say last night that Government does not create jobs??????

And doesn't that say why the Electoral College is a horrible idea?

Becaue Virginia is a Swing State, Romney is pushing for more ships to be built, not because the navy needs them, but because they produce jobs in one state.

Meanwhile, Obama pushes the Auto Bailout at every oppurtunity because Michigan and Ohio are swing states...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So, how does Romney expect to pay for the additional $2T in military spending, exactly?

by increasing tax revenue.

Have you not been paying attention?

Show me the math where he plans to raise tax revenue by not only the $2T to pay for this bloated "defense" budget, but also for his 20% across the board tax rate cuts. Show me. I ask you, because he wont. Ryan wont and their website doesn't.

Show me this liberal "myth" that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporate taxes will actually pay down our debt and balance the budget? If this was the case why is California (a liberal state, with a Democrat governor and a Democrat Legislature) that shares in having some of the highest state tax rates in the nation, holding massive debt and flirting with bankrupcy? With Hollywood and the technology hub of the nation (silicon valley), they are in no short supply of rich individuals and businesses to extract their wealth from. So why is California suffering with so much debt rather than a surplus?

Also, Shouldn't a Federal Budget program begin with Harry Reed and the Senate actually proposing and passing a "Federal Budget Plan" (there's a novel idea). How many years has this administration run without one?

It appears the Democrats don't wish to be "constrained" within any boundaries that would hold them "accountable" (they hate that word) with a budget that puts any restrictions on (shall I dare say it.....?) entitlement programs. Cut military spending, as long as it doesn't prohibit my "entitlement" to obtain free "stuff" and dependance on the Federal Government (contraception, a cell phone, living off a government check and paying no taxes, etc). ........ and YES Planned Parenthood can certainly find a way to survive off of private donations and funding, without Federal taxpayer dollars.

 

[VaYank5150]

by increasing tax revenue.

Have you not been paying attention?

Show me the math where he plans to raise tax revenue by not only the $2T to pay for this bloated "defense" budget, but also for his 20% across the board tax rate cuts. Show me. I ask you, because he wont. Ryan wont and their website doesn't.

Show me this liberal "myth" that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporate taxes will actually pay down our debt and balance the budget? If this was the case why is California (a liberal state, with a Democrat governor and a Democrat Legislature) that shares in having some of the highest state tax rates in the nation, holding massive debt and flirting with bankrupcy? With Hollywood and the technology hub of the nation (silicon valley), they are in no short supply of rich individuals and businesses to extract their wealth from. So why is California suffering with so much debt rather than a surplus?

Seems also such a Federal Budget program should begin with Harry Reed and the Senate actually proposing a "Federal Budget Plan". How many years has this administration run without one?

Deflect much? Show us the math.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Show me the math where he plans to raise tax revenue by not only the $2T to pay for this bloated "defense" budget, but also for his 20% across the board tax rate cuts. Show me. I ask you, because he wont. Ryan wont and their website doesn't.

Show me this liberal "myth" that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporate taxes will actually pay down our debt and balance the budget? If this was the case why is California (a liberal state, with a Democrat governor and a Democrat Legislature) that shares in having some of the highest state tax rates in the nation, holding massive debt and flirting with bankrupcy? With Hollywood and the technology hub of the nation (silicon valley), they are in no short supply of rich individuals and businesses to extract their wealth from. So why is California suffering with so much debt rather than a surplus?

Seems also such a Federal Budget program should begin with Harry Reed and the Senate actually proposing a "Federal Budget Plan". How many years has this administration run without one?

Deflect much? Show us the math.

Ahhhh yes .....Avoiding the question, just sticking to your liberal talking points. I just found for you the PRIME example of where higher taxes is used to balance a budget - California. Now when your argument can no longer be defended, you try to remove yourself from having to explain your position of higher taxes.

The proof ... beyond math, is in California's OWN actual state budget. It's a simple question. If California (a liberal Democrat run state, with a Democrat governor, and Democrat Legislature) proposes and establishes some of the highest taxes of any state in the nation, why are they suffering from such high debt and flirting with bankruptcy? Are you simply incapable of defending your own argument?

How California's income tax and sales tax rates compare

We're No. 1 -- only more so.

The budget deal the Legislature reached today will keep California's top personal income tax rate and sales tax rate the highest in the Union.

The agreement will raise personal income tax rates by 0.25 of a percentage point across the board, beginning with the current tax year. The highest rate, on taxable income of more than $1 million, will rise to 10.55% from 10.3%. The next-highest tax rate, on taxable income of more than $94,110 for a married couple filing jointly, will rise to 9.55% from 9.3%. For singles, the threshold for the new 9.55% tax rate is $47,055. The 0.25-point hike could be reduced to 0.125 of a point depending on how much federal help the state gets as part of Congress' economic stimulus package.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/02/california-tax.html

 

[Listening]

why's that Virginia is a ship yard state

So? Are you suggesting that our bloated defense budget is SUPPOSED to be propping up jobs in Virginia? Didn't Romney JUST say last night that Government does not create jobs??????

And doesn't that say why the Electoral College is a horrible idea?

Becaue Virginia is a Swing State, Romney is pushing for more ships to be built, not because the navy needs them, but because they produce jobs in one state.

Meanwhile, Obama pushes the Auto Bailout at every oppurtunity because Michigan and Ohio are swing states...

Wrong again.....

What this says is that having so much money in the control of the federal government is a bad idea.

 

[JoeB131]

So? Are you suggesting that our bloated defense budget is SUPPOSED to be propping up jobs in Virginia? Didn't Romney JUST say last night that Government does not create jobs??????

And doesn't that say why the Electoral College is a horrible idea?

Becaue Virginia is a Swing State, Romney is pushing for more ships to be built, not because the navy needs them, but because they produce jobs in one state.

Meanwhile, Obama pushes the Auto Bailout at every oppurtunity because Michigan and Ohio are swing states...

Wrong again.....

What this says is that having so much money in the control of the federal government is a bad idea.

Only in your deluded mind.

The states aren't going to build Navies and they weren't going to be able to bail out the Auto Industry on a national level. So in both cases, the Federal Government WAS doing what it was supposed to do.

The thing is, no one is talking about Texas or California's concerns right now, because they aren't swing states.

When you ahve thiis thing down to about 7 states, only those 7 states count.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

why's that Virginia is a ship yard state

So? Are you suggesting that our bloated defense budget is SUPPOSED to be propping up jobs in Virginia? Didn't Romney JUST say last night that Government does not create jobs??????

And doesn't that say why the Electoral College is a horrible idea?

Becaue Virginia is a Swing State, Romney is pushing for more ships to be built, not because the navy needs them, but because they produce jobs in one state.

Meanwhile, Obama pushes the Auto Bailout at every oppurtunity because Michigan and Ohio are swing states...

The electoral college is actually a great idea. The reason being is that without one, the smaller states wouldn't have an equal representation to those bigger higher population states (like California or New York). States like Connecticut and Rhode Island wouldn't find that they vote really mattered, ... as if "who cares if their votes are really counted at all". The electoral college was established to give each and every citizen (regardless of which state they were from) an equal "voice" and say in the election process.

Question: Wouldn't eliminating this method of electing a president, actually create in itself a form of "voter suppression", as a certain group of legally registered voters would find their rights to have their vote "represented" in an election was suddenly taken from them? How can you provide actually certainty that a state like Connecticut, would still have a proper voice for what the people in that state would like to see happen for the direction of their country?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So, how does Romney expect to pay for the additional $2T in military spending, exactly?

by increasing tax revenue.

Have you not been paying attention?

Show me the math where he plans to raise tax revenue by not only the $2T to pay for this bloated "defense" budget, but also for his 20% across the board tax rate cuts. Show me. I ask you, because he wont. Ryan wont and their website doesn't.

When you look to raising taxes as your primary means to raise revenue, the following is what happens. I'm trying to connect the dots for you on this increasing "revenue" argument. You might be familiar with it, it's the case of: "For every action their is an equal an opposite reaction".

Companies Leaving California in Record Numbers

"In 2011, 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state, 26% more than in 2010, according to Irvine business consultant Joe Vranich who has been tracking these departures since 2009.

The pace is accelerating, Vranich said. An average of 4.9 businesses left California each week of 2011, compared to 3.9 per week (202 total) in 2010 and one a week (51 total) in 2009. In what he calls "disinvestment events," Vranich counts companies that move jobs, facilities or headquarters out of California and "in carefully selected instances, companies making major capital investments in plants elsewhere that in the past would have been built in California," Vranich said.

http:mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/03/companies-leaving-california-in-record.html

Where do you look to raise revenue when a company decides they no longer want to build a plant there? The business just closes it's doors and then up and leaves on you, and more importantly .... taking all those JOBS with them. Where is your precious revenue?

The left has this "illusion" that a corporation looking to compete in a global market will, out of the good graces of your highness President Barack Obama, simply WANT to stay here in the United States. Why exactly? What the left doesn't "get" or "incapable of understanding" is what incentives are there for a corporation to not take their business elsewhere like Sweden perhaps?


This is also why Obama can't jump start the economy, because he doesn't have the slightest clue on the HEART of a successful economy -- a successful business ...... that in turn seeks to hire more workers.

Swedish Tax Newsletter
January 2011

1. Swedish Corporate Taxation; Up-date & News

The Swedish corporate tax rate has been REDUCED from 28% to 26.3%, applicable for financial years starting 1 January 2009, or later (the reduction in part financed by the new anti-debt push down restrictions).

The ABOLISHED capital gains taxation for corporates a few years ago has under the participation exemption provisions made Sweden a favourable holding company location. Capital gains on shares held for business reasons are, thus, tax exempt for corporates and losses are not deductible. The tax exemption also include dividends on such shares.

http://www.pwc.com/se/sv/swedish-tax...ter-1-2011.pdf

as a result:

Sweden overtakes the US in competitiveness
Economy - Published Wednesday, 16 February 2011 05:46 | Author: Johan Nylander

Sweden is the world’s second most competitive country, according to the World Economic Forum’s last ranking. The Scandinavian country was praised for its transparency, efficient financial markets and world-leading adoption of technology.

Switzerland topped the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. Sweden overtook the US and Singapore this year to be placed 2nd overall.

Sweden benefits from the world’s most transparent and efficient public institutions, with very low levels of corruption and undue influence. The government is also considered to be one of the most efficient in the world (that leaves the United States Federal Government out. This administration spends more than an alcoholic at 'happy hour'), stated the report.

“Combined with a strong focus on education over the years (ranked 2nd for higher education and training) (that won't happen here as long as we have unions and teacher tenure placed at greater importance over students) and the world’s strongest technological adoption (ranked 1st in technological readiness), Sweden has developed a very sophisticated business culture (2nd) and is one of the world’s leading innovators (ranked 5th)", said the World Economic Forum in its report.

http://www.swedishwire.com/economy/8...ompetitiveness

U.S. Manufacturing Moving Overseas – The New Wave
Posted on September 13, 2011 by China Briefing

Op-Ed Commentary: Chris Devonshire-Ellis

Sept. 13 – Recent data showing that that old bug-bear, the U.S.-China trade imbalance, is diminishing is partially good news – not least for American politicians who like to defer domestic issues by pointing fingers overseas. “It’s all their fault!” is the world’s longest running, and possibly oldest human statement.

But jobs remain a concern, and this regrettably is going to be a feature of the American economy for some time. There has been plenty of talk about the Chinese economy recalibrating from being an export-based economy to a consumer-based economy. Everyone agrees this is taking place, will take time, and it remains central government policy. In the democratic United States, longer-term policy is more difficult to assess. Yet market forces are dictating that America must change – it simply cannot retain such a large manufacturing base as costs in the United States are just too expensive.

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2...-new-wave.html

Do we have a better understanding as to why Obama's economic policy hasn't worked, and STILL won't work in the next four years?

 

[VaYank5150]

Show me this liberal "myth" that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporate taxes will actually pay down our debt and balance the budget? If this was the case why is California (a liberal state, with a Democrat governor and a Democrat Legislature) that shares in having some of the highest state tax rates in the nation, holding massive debt and flirting with bankrupcy? With Hollywood and the technology hub of the nation (silicon valley), they are in no short supply of rich individuals and businesses to extract their wealth from. So why is California suffering with so much debt rather than a surplus?

Seems also such a Federal Budget program should begin with Harry Reed and the Senate actually proposing a "Federal Budget Plan". How many years has this administration run without one?

Deflect much? Show us the math.

Ahhhh yes .....Avoiding the question, just sticking to your liberal talking points. I just found for you the PRIME example of where higher taxes is used to balance a budget - California. Now when your argument can no longer be defended, you try to remove yourself from having to explain your position of higher taxes.

The proof ... beyond math, is in California's OWN actual state budget. It's a simple question. If California (a liberal Democrat run state, with a Democrat governor, and Democrat Legislature) proposes and establishes some of the highest taxes of any state in the nation, why are they suffering from such high debt and flirting with bankruptcy? Are you simply incapable of defending your own argument?

How California's income tax and sales tax rates compare

We're No. 1 -- only more so.

The budget deal the Legislature reached today will keep California's top personal income tax rate and sales tax rate the highest in the Union.

The agreement will raise personal income tax rates by 0.25 of a percentage point across the board, beginning with the current tax year. The highest rate, on taxable income of more than $1 million, will rise to 10.55% from 10.3%. The next-highest tax rate, on taxable income of more than $94,110 for a married couple filing jointly, will rise to 9.55% from 9.3%. For singles, the threshold for the new 9.55% tax rate is $47,055. The 0.25-point hike could be reduced to 0.125 of a point depending on how much federal help the state gets as part of Congress' economic stimulus package.

How California's income tax and sales tax rates compare - latimes.com

MY argument can no longer be defended? I asked a straight up question. How does Romney plan to pay for the additional $2T in military spending AND cut tax rates by 20% across the board all at the same time? I can try typing slower if it will help you?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Deflect much? Show us the math.

Ahhhh yes .....Avoiding the question, just sticking to your liberal talking points. I just found for you the PRIME example of where higher taxes is used to balance a budget - California. Now when your argument can no longer be defended, you try to remove yourself from having to explain your position of higher taxes.

The proof ... beyond math, is in California's OWN actual state budget. It's a simple question. If California (a liberal Democrat run state, with a Democrat governor, and Democrat Legislature) proposes and establishes some of the highest taxes of any state in the nation, why are they suffering from such high debt and flirting with bankruptcy? Are you simply incapable of defending your own argument?

How California's income tax and sales tax rates compare

We're No. 1 -- only more so.

The budget deal the Legislature reached today will keep California's top personal income tax rate and sales tax rate the highest in the Union.

The agreement will raise personal income tax rates by 0.25 of a percentage point across the board, beginning with the current tax year. The highest rate, on taxable income of more than $1 million, will rise to 10.55% from 10.3%. The next-highest tax rate, on taxable income of more than $94,110 for a married couple filing jointly, will rise to 9.55% from 9.3%. For singles, the threshold for the new 9.55% tax rate is $47,055. The 0.25-point hike could be reduced to 0.125 of a point depending on how much federal help the state gets as part of Congress' economic stimulus package.

How California's income tax and sales tax rates compare - latimes.com

MY argument can no longer be defended? I asked a straight up question. How does Romney plan to pay for the additional $2T in military spending AND cut tax rates by 20% across the board all at the same time? I can try typing slower if it will help you?

I tried to connect the dots, and you still have no basis for defending higher taxes as a means to lower the debt. I just flat out showed you that raising taxes does not equate to higher revenue. Again, what "incentive" can you provide to allow corporations to establish their business in the United States? It's seems obvious the elevator doesn't quite make it to the penthouse, in your case, so I will try to explain it again.

The Federal Government needs revenue, which it does through collecting taxes. Agreed? In it's simplist terms, Businesses are always looking to create a profit, part in doing so involves balancing their assets (Economic resources owned or controlled by the company) with their liabilities (Debt owed by a company). Liabilities include labor costs as well as state and Federal taxes.

Now here is the tricky part, pay attention. Some liabilities a business can control, such as moving to another state that has a cheaper corporate tax rate, or to another country that makes it more "affordable" (there's that word) for them to do business. When a business or corporation LEAVES a state - then workers lose their jobs, the state also loses their source of revenue BINGO!

Notice how California raised taxes, companies left in record numbers, and the state lost revenue from those corporations. How can a business have money to spend on new hiring, when all their available equity is being used to pay higher rates in Federal and State taxes?

The same was shown with the United states and Sweeden. You are thinking a company will simply choose to stay in the United States, when Ford (for example) is already building a major plant in CHINA! Where is this nation's revenue now? Where did all the jobs go that this economy need? China (not Americans) will have a job in this new plant. Are you honestly going to sit and tell me, that a manufacturing plant WILL NOT ever leave a state or country to be built somewhere else because it was cheaper for them to do so?

Who enjoys the revenue, China or the United States? (see below)

Ford to Build Plant in China to Bolster Global Sales
Published: April 19, 2012 by the New York Times


BEIJING, CHINA — Ford Motor has chosen China for its largest factory expansion program in a half century, announcing on Thursday that it would build a $760 million assembly plant in Hangzhou, two weeks after announcing another $600 million plan to expand an assembly plant in Chongqing and less than six weeks after completing a third assembly plant in Chongqing.

Until early this year, Ford had an annual manufacturing capacity in China of 450,000 cars, in what has become the world’s largest market, with annual sales of 18 million vehicles. But by 2015, it plans to have an annual capacity of 1.2 million cars.

Ford opened early last month what is essentially a new assembly plant in Chongqing with an annual capacity of 150,000 cars, although for regulatory purposes it is an extension of an existing assembly plant that is a 10-minute drive away. Two weeks ago, Ford announced it would increase its capacity at the new assembly plant by 350,000 cars a year by expanding the new operation and by building yet another assembly plant next door.

Ford said on Thursday that it would build a state-of-the-art assembly plant in Hangzhou with an annual capacity of 250,000 cars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/b...-plant-in-china-to-catch-up-with-gm.html?_r=0

(1) Swedish corporate tax rate has been REDUCED from 28% to 26.3% (there you go cutting taxes!!)

(2) Sweeden ABOLISHED capital gains taxation for corporates!

(3) In turn made Sweden a favourable holding company location! ..... More Corporations moving into Sweeden means more revenue collected!

Can't be any simpler to why Romney supports lowering the tax rates.

 

[daveman]

No, the navy WANTS more ships.

The navy doesn't NEED more ships.

That's not for military-hating morons to decide.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think and maybe hope the army has given up the bayonet, it may have been a great tactic during the Civil War and maybe even after but like many military tactics and weapons it becomes obsolete.

Not really...as mudwhistle mentioned either in this thread or one of the OTHER "horses and bayonet" threads.... the modern day bayonet isn't like your grandfather's. Think of a top notch survival knife that can be attached to a rifle. Versatile tool and a welcomed one....

But that really wasn't the point Obama was making.....and they know that. They are just looking to take shit out of context....kind of like '"you didn't build that".

Well, it just showed us how little Obama really knows about the military. That's all it showed.

Yet he felt he could talk shit to Romney about it.

Reminds me of the way my Section Chief would ask me to give him a block of instruction on something I had years of training on. 15 mins of instruction made him think he was an expert on it.

He could impress people that didn't know dick about it but for those of us who know it inside and out....we're not impressed.

 

[JoeB131]

No, the navy WANTS more ships.

The navy doesn't NEED more ships.

That's not for military-hating morons to decide.

No, actually, it's for all of us to decide.

The Navy doesn't need more ships if we aren't facing a major naval threat. Russia's navy is dilapidated and China's navy is a joke. (And if you guys are reall worried about China, Romney should stop giving them our jobs!)

We do need to fix the schools and the roads.

But let's see what this guy had to say about such matters...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."-
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at Every gun that is made, every... at BrainyQuote

Man, what a fuckin' Commie, eh, Caveman?

 

[JoeB131]

Well, it just showed us how little Obama really knows about the military. That's all it showed.

Yet he felt he could talk shit to Romney about it.

Reminds me of the way my Section Chief would ask me to give him a block of instruction on something I had years of training on. 15 mins of instruction made him think he was an expert on it.

He could impress people that didn't know dick about it but for those of us who know it inside and out....we're not impressed.

Okay, Muddy. No one uses bayonets and horsies anymore...

Romney got *****-slapped.

Deal with it.

 

[daveman]

No, the navy WANTS more ships.

The navy doesn't NEED more ships.

That's not for military-hating morons to decide.

No, actually, it's for all of us to decide.

The Navy doesn't need more ships if we aren't facing a major naval threat. Russia's navy is dilapidated and China's navy is a joke. (And if you guys are reall worried about China, Romney should stop giving them our jobs!)

We do need to fix the schools and the roads.

But let's see what this guy had to say about such matters...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."-
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at Every gun that is made, every... at BrainyQuote

Man, what a fuckin' Commie, eh, Caveman?

You'll have your chance to vote to weaken America in a few days.

And that's exactly what you'll do.

Why do leftists loathe the idea of a strong America?

 

[JoeB131]

That's not for military-hating morons to decide.

No, actually, it's for all of us to decide.

The Navy doesn't need more ships if we aren't facing a major naval threat. Russia's navy is dilapidated and China's navy is a joke. (And if you guys are reall worried about China, Romney should stop giving them our jobs!)

We do need to fix the schools and the roads.

But let's see what this guy had to say about such matters...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."-
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at Every gun that is made, every... at BrainyQuote

Man, what a fuckin' Commie, eh, Caveman?

You'll have your chance to vote to weaken America in a few days.

And that's exactly what you'll do.

Why do leftists loathe the idea of a strong America?

Depends how you define a strong America.

My idea of a strong America is one where we take care of our own, not go around spending money on overpriced military toys to defend the rest of the world so they can make a killing stealing our jobs or getting our boys to die to settle their fights.

Ike was the first to warn us about the Military-Industrial Complex... and the message still hasn't sunk in.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, the navy WANTS more ships.

The navy doesn't NEED more ships.

That's not for military-hating morons to decide.

No, actually, it's for all of us to decide.

The Navy doesn't need more ships if we aren't facing a major naval threat. Russia's navy is dilapidated and China's navy is a joke. (And if you guys are reall worried about China, Romney should stop giving them our jobs!)

We do need to fix the schools and the roads.

But let's see what this guy had to say about such matters...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."-
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at Every gun that is made, every... at BrainyQuote

Man, what a fuckin' Commie, eh, Caveman?

My Grandfather used to build ships.

How long do you think it takes to build an aircraft-carrier? A couple of months? It takes over a year for one to go into dry-dock and undergo a refitting. It takes years to build them. Do you suppose we just wait till we see a threat before we decide to build one to counter it? That kind of thinking got us into WWII.

Obama is neglecting our military so he can use the money to buy votes. It's what every Democrat president does. Carter and Clinton did the same shit. It never changes. Democrats tear down the military and a Republican rebuilds it and the Democraps criticize them for raising the debt.

 

[JoeB131]

My Grandfather used to build ships.

How long do you think it takes to build an aircraft-carrier? A couple of months? It takes over a year for one to go into dry-dock and undergo a refitting. It takes years to build them. Do you suppose we just wait till we see a threat before we decide to build one to counter it? That kind of thinking got us into WWII.

Obama is neglecting our military so he can use the money to buy votes. It's what every Democrat president does. Carter and Clinton did the same shit. It never changes. Democrats tear down the military and a Republican rebuilds it and the Democraps criticize them for raising the debt.

Okay, guy, here's the thing. We have 11 Active Aircraft carriers with 2 more under construction.

The rest of the world?

China has one old Soviet one that was never a particularly good design. India has a refurbrished British one. Russia has one. The UK has one that can't launched Fixed Wing Aircraft. France has one. Other wealthy countries aren't even bothering, like Germany and Japan. Why should they? They can invest in improving themselves knowing we'll handle their security for free! What a deal. For them, not us.

Seriously, dude, this isn't like Admiral Yamamoto has his huge carrier task force. This is us bankrupting ourselves buying expensive toys while our kids aren't getting the education needed to actually operate them. Meanwhile our roads and bridges are crumbling and our good jobs are going to China.