36
   

I TOOK DOWN MY AMERICAN FLAG FROM MY HOUSE

 
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 02:29 pm
@Baldimo,
Which congress passed that law? hmm.. It wasn't the GOP controlled one, was it?

And it looks like Bush threatened to veto that law before finally signing it under pressure.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:17 pm
@Baldimo,
Well Baldimo it is indeed nice to know that you are not planning on going to war against the US, however how is your withdrawing your knowledge and training from the military going to slow the rot of the military you are forseeing under Obama?

You are only willing to serve if the majority of the country elect a government you are happy with?
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:36 pm
@BillRM,
No I'm talking from history. When the last 2 democratic presidents were in power they reeked havoc on the military. They both slashed spending which made it difficult if not impossible to do ones job. Talk to someone that was in during those times and see if I'm wrong. People in my unit who were in under Clinton remember that it was almost impossible to get parts for a helicopter because they weren't being funded. I don't want to serve under that, would you?
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:38 pm
@parados,
I'm not sure when it passed. I think it was back in 2005 but it could have been in 2006. I'm almost sure if the Dems had been responsible then you would have heard about it. They would have been shouting from the highest mountain. If you knew about it, then why did you start the BS about horrible treatment of vets and medical care?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 04:09 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo, worry not; you and your position here is quite reasonable... and rational observers recognize that. BillRM seems to want to impugn you with OmSigDavid's and Cjhsa's idiocy. Why, I have no idea, but I wouldn't concern myself with it.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 04:49 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Not concerned at all. I don't know if he has ever been in the military but I'm assuming that he hasn't. When the govt starts giving bonuses to people to get out again you know something is wrong. Back in the mid and late 90's people in the military were being offered $15,000 - $25,000 to not reenlist. I just see that as a wrong move. Keep the funding but don't offer people to get out. Lots of people took the money and look where the military was when Bush took over. Not able to deploy, no material to do their jobs and they wanted to blame Bush for no armor. They would have had armor if the guy who had the job before hadn't cut their funding, and closed down bases.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 04:51 pm
@Baldimo,
It was 2007.

You don't seem to want to know about it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 04:58 pm
What a typically witless attitude one sees in conservatives who blame Clinton for funding cuts. From 1995 to 2001, for the last six years of Clinton's term in office, the Congress was controlled by Republicans. Money bills originate in the House of Representatives, and only in the House. If there were funding problems, look to the Republican shits ushered in by Newt Gingrich in the 1994 mid-term electi0n when he brought out his contract on America.

It is just appalling how ignorant and bigoted the average conservative whiner is.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 05:00 pm
@Baldimo,
I think you are blaming Clinton for a program that was instituted by Reagan and developed by Bush I. Its the BRACprogram or (BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ). the base closures began during Clinton , continued through Bush II and now we are into the Realignment phases where specific bases will actually be expanded. This had nothing to do with Up armor of cutting forces. That was mostly done in Bush I's reign.
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:00 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

No I'm talking from history. When the last 2 democratic presidents were in power they reeked havoc on the military. They both slashed spending which made it difficult if not impossible to do ones job. Talk to someone that was in during those times and see if I'm wrong. People in my unit who were in under Clinton remember that it was almost impossible to get parts for a helicopter because they weren't being funded. I don't want to serve under that, would you?


Here's just some of his defense agenda. There's more of it at the link. Please read it so you can react with a more informed opinion.

http://www.change.gov/agenda/defense/

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

Invest in a 21st Century Military

Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks: As we rebuild our armed forces, we must not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. Obama and Biden believe that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines.

Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama and Biden have committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.

Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.

Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:08 pm
@Setanta,
If that were the case then I guess we can blame the housing melt down on the Dems because they control the house and the senate. We can go there if you want Set. They have been in control for 2 years. Going by your logic it is their fault the economy has fallen on its face.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:13 pm
@farmerman,
Care to explain where the funding for the military went then in the mid to late 90's? You can't say closing down bases caused a funding shortage. If they were closing down bases then there should have been more money not less.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:16 pm
@Baldimo,
Is the housing meltdown a legislative issue or an oversight (e.g., executive) issue? (Or a combination of both?)

And were the bulk of the problem loans issued during the past 2 years (or, rather, 22 months), or prior to that?

I ask both questions in all seriousness, being pretty ignorant about things, but it does seem to me that it's been easy to get a mortgage with nothing much to back it up for years now. Exactly when all of these mortgages got packaged and passed from rich hand to rich hand I don't know...
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:19 pm
@patiodog,
The point of the matter is this. The Dems were in power and did nothing over the last 2 years to stop it. I was going off of Set's rules, not my own. I blame everyone from the top to the bottom. Yes that includes the stupid people who took the loans in the first place.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:22 pm
@Baldimo,
Set's rules are to blame someone that didn't stop it? Wow. I don't think he said that at all.

That is however the standard conservative line though. You didn't stop us so it's your fault.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:26 pm
@parados,
Did they hold the reigns of power or not over the last 2 years? Could they have enacted legistration to halt or slow the the fall? Yes they could have but they didn't. I already said I blame everyone including Bush and everyone else that was involved.
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:27 pm
@Baldimo,
I'm really not being confrontational on this one, but set's point re: spending issues was that spending bills come from the house (but, naturally are shaped by the executive, especially if the house and executive are controlled by the same party), whereas matters pertaining to how the banking industry is managed may originate in legislation -- but, if not, they are likely to be privelege of the executive branch to control.

I think the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party, by and large, are bunch of corrupt tools of the corporate sphere, just like the Republican Party. ****, my politics don't even align on most issues with what either party purports to believe in, let alone what their actions actually show them to be.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:29 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Did they hold the reigns of power or not over the last 2 years? Could they have enacted legistration to halt or slow the the fall? Yes they could have but they didn't. I already said I blame everyone including Bush and everyone else that was involved.


Now that's what my gut tells me. But I still wanna know who was actually pulling the levers. (But not enough to, you know, look it up. It won't change my disdain for the system any.)
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:36 pm
@patiodog,
I agree with you. I am going to go looking for a much better person next time around. Lets hope we get someone who runs on a constitutional platform.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:40 pm
@Baldimo,
Lord we are budgeting more funds to our military then all the rest of the world combine!

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 04:38:16