Wow....just wow...

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-05-2011, 20:33
mevshooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

I don't understand why so many of you guys like #1.

No one would be getting behind number one if we didn't have unreasonable tariffs and taxes on exporting our goods. If people can ship to us without hindrance, or with incentive, then we should be able to do the same with other countries. It makes no sense why we can't sell to other countries without being penalized ourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPTactical

What kills me with these douchenozzles that are protesting: you scream that you are owed this and that. Why the fuck aren't you in school/work?
STFU!

Amen!

As long as there are jobs listed on monster, craigslist, etc, there are OBVIOUSLY people who CAN work who choose NOT to.

The moment all of those and the classifieds cease to list ANY jobs, yet we still have a high unemployment rate, I will consider changing my tune.

I understand there are those who are struggling, and have had some genuinely crap times as of of late (shout out to all of you on this board looking for a job... praying for you), but even you guys are spending your time LOOKING for a job, instead of organizing some bull crap post-60's circle jerk excuse to keep NOT working.

EFF!!!!!!

Okay, I'm good.
10-05-2011, 20:38
Byte Stryke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier

Wish we'd spent a trillion on infrastructure instead of Iraq.

or the wallstreet Fatcats

+1
10-05-2011, 23:09
Irving

I was thinking that they might have some merit when I was reading the first demand, but then they sneaked in the "Oh yeah and 20 bucks an hour!" and I ROFL'd my way through the rest of the demands.

Someone just got a "C" in his Intro to Economics class.
10-05-2011, 23:26
Irving

This just in!

Attention 99%, in accordance with demand # 11, No one owes you shit. Have a nice day, see you in the job pool.
10-06-2011, 00:57
Sharpienads

I still don't understand what the obsession is with some of you guys and tariffs.

Which imports get tarrifs levied on them?

How much will the tarrifs be?

Who gets to decide?

How long will they last?

If you don't think that imposing tarrifs will just be another way the government will use taxes to try to encourage certain behaviors you're kidding yourself.

Instead of levying tarrifs to make up for our trade disadvantages, why don't we get rid of the unnecessary and/or unconstitutional laws and regulations that put us at a disadvantage in the first place?

And yes, I do want everybody to earn $0.50 an hour, lower everybody's standard of living, want people to be worked like slaves, etc. I just can't imagine how anybody would ever to be able to make a decent living without the government's help. /sarcasm

At least congress has authority to levy tarrifs IAW Article 1, Section 8. The rest of the list of demands shows total constitutional and economic ignorance. The list actually sounds a lot like the 10 pillars of communism.
10-06-2011, 05:58
Bailey Guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier

Pretty sure the title says, "Proposed List Of Demands" in a pretty large font at the top.

I used the word "genuine" in the sense that the story is real...not made up.
10-06-2011, 06:47
roberth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I used the word "genuine" in the sense that the story is real...not made up.

I have no doubts that the list of demands is just the start of what they want without any real effort on their part of course.

Typical liberals, expect everything to be given to them in exchange for nothing. That 'life isn't fair' bullshit is so 8 year old girl.
10-06-2011, 06:59
Bailey Guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by roberth

I have no doubts that the list of demands is just the start of what they want without any real effort on their part of course.

Typical liberals, expect everything to be given to them in exchange for nothing. That 'life isn't fair' bullshit is so 8 year old girl.

Unless you're a liberal. Then it's perfectly rational thought.
10-06-2011, 07:26
roberth

These Wall Street protesters don't even know recent history.

Bush ran TARP for Wall Street.

Obama ran QE1 and QE2 for Wall Street and now Obama is promoting some new hogwash called a Jobs Bill.

The protesters are protesting the very same folks that Obama, whom many of them voted for, is helping. Morons.
10-06-2011, 07:41
roberth

I was listening to Boyles this morning and he is playing these recordings from something called Anonymous from the Occupy Wall Street collective.

The recording says something will happen on October 10th, 2011. I guess we'll wait and see.
10-06-2011, 07:51
Bailey Guns

There is supposed to be a huge denial of service web attack against wall street companies.
10-06-2011, 08:24
Zundfolge

Quote:

Originally Posted by roberth

The recording says something will happen on October 10th, 2011. I guess we'll wait and see.

HAHA ... dumbasses are going to plan some sort of direct action when nobody is there (Columbus Day) HA HA HA!
10-06-2011, 09:04
roberth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

HAHA ... dumbasses are going to plan some sort of direct action when nobody is there (Columbus Day) HA HA HA!

They must have a day off from school, just like an 8 year old girl.
10-06-2011, 10:37
Ronin13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier

Pretty sure the title says, "Proposed List Of Demands" in a pretty large font at the top. Also this is one voice in what appears to be a more or less leaderless movement... just like other internet groups, the idea of something existing without leadership (and thus without any coherent or unified list of demaneds) is difficult for people to grasp.

Almost all of what's here is utopian pipe dreams, except:

Wish we'd spent a trillion on infrastructure instead of Iraq.

H.

Just FYI- the money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan is only 1/5th of what Obama has spent in his first 2 years in office... the Wars in Iraq/Afg are at $1T as of FY2010, for 10 years? that's not bad. And at recent estimates it's going to cost anywhere from $1.3-1.9 TRILLION over the next 6 years to fix our crumbling infrastructure... The wars still don't match that.
10-06-2011, 10:54
Hoosier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Just FYI- the money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan is only 1/5th of what Obama has spent in his first 2 years in office... the Wars in Iraq/Afg are at $1T as of FY2010, for 10 years? that's not bad. And at recent estimates it's going to cost anywhere from $1.3-1.9 TRILLION over the next 6 years to fix our crumbling infrastructure... The wars still don't match that.

Your definition of "not bad" and mine clearly are not the same...

So no, the wars don't quite cover our expensive to rebuild infrastructure... only 50 to 70% of it.

H.
10-06-2011, 11:04
Zundfolge

Most infrastructure in this country is the responsibility of the States, not the Federal Government.

But we abandoned Federalism long ago so whatever.
10-06-2011, 11:36
Ronin13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier

Your definition of "not bad" and mine clearly are not the same...

So no, the wars don't quite cover our expensive to rebuild infrastructure... only 50 to 70% of it.

H.

Seeing as how I've seen the books for just one battalion (including Garrison and Deployment for 12 months each)- $1 Trillion for 10 years of active hostilities- which covers a lot of shit: Food, clothing, ammo, vehicles (both mil and civ), parts, mechanical equipment, computer equipment, base defense, contractors pay, contracting fees, services, water, trucking, mil heavy equipment, and fuel... which we won't even factor in hazard pay, overseas duty pay, and soldier base pay- for one BN that's a lot of money for one year, but I still say money well spent because if we were short changed in any of those areas life would have gotten hard fast, especially the first 7. And I back my brothers and sisters up 100% that are still over there fighting.
10-06-2011, 15:22
Hoosier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Seeing as how I've seen the books for just one battalion (including Garrison and Deployment for 12 months each)- $1 Trillion for 10 years of active hostilities- which covers a lot of shit: Food, clothing, ammo, vehicles (both mil and civ), parts, mechanical equipment, computer equipment, base defense, contractors pay, contracting fees, services, water, trucking, mil heavy equipment, and fuel... which we won't even factor in hazard pay, overseas duty pay, and soldier base pay- for one BN that's a lot of money for one year, but I still say money well spent because if we were short changed in any of those areas life would have gotten hard fast, especially the first 7. And I back my brothers and sisters up 100% that are still over there fighting.

My point was more that American citizens would have gotten a lot more mileage out of infrastructure than our foray into nation building in a country with the political fault lines Iraq has.

Also, as you're obviously ex-mil and have seen books, what do you think about what the government spends on contractors vs. what it spends on providing services in-house. Do you think that the continued reliance on PMC's is a good thing for our armed forces? Do you think the citizens of this country get better value for their money from Triple Canopy than we would a infantry battalion?

Or is it a case of some things good, some things bad, and the system could be / is likely to be cleaned up in the future?

Genuine question, I have heard we overpay, but the argument could be made that we don't have to pay PMC's during "peace" time.

H.
10-07-2011, 14:13
cebeu

Sittin' in their own poop and trash..."smells" like progress I'm sure.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/07...reet-protests/
10-07-2011, 14:31
Byte Stryke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier

My point was more that American citizens would have gotten a lot more mileage out of infrastructure than our foray into nation building in a country with the political fault lines Iraq has.

Also, as you're obviously ex-mil and have seen books, what do you think about what the government spends on contractors vs. what it spends on providing services in-house. Do you think that the continued reliance on PMC's is a good thing for our armed forces? Do you think the citizens of this country get better value for their money from Triple Canopy than we would a infantry battalion?

Or is it a case of some things good, some things bad, and the system could be / is likely to be cleaned up in the future?

Genuine question, I have heard we overpay, but the argument could be made that we don't have to pay PMC's during "peace" time.

H.

Personally, I believe its a mixed bag.

Yes, Military armed operations should be primarily handled by the Mil.
Now, Security should be handled by a hybrid force of civilians overseen by mil.
Nothing says suck like coming back from patrol to stand guard...

Higher technologies also... you aren't going to find a Pfc with a BS in computer sciences, Certifications to deploy for 36 month terms in a combat zone for 28K a year...

I do agree with the need to downscale the combat roles of the contractor.

but as our technologies accelerate, the soldiers will simply not be able to keep up on the requirements under the current benefit/pay.

as far as the money, I won't get into our need to go into Iraq.
But I do believe we could have done with the money we shipped them for their infrastructure.
10-07-2011, 14:44
Ronin13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier

My point was more that American citizens would have gotten a lot more mileage out of infrastructure than our foray into nation building in a country with the political fault lines Iraq has.

Also, as you're obviously ex-mil and have seen books, what do you think about what the government spends on contractors vs. what it spends on providing services in-house. Do you think that the continued reliance on PMC's is a good thing for our armed forces? Do you think the citizens of this country get better value for their money from Triple Canopy than we would a infantry battalion?

Or is it a case of some things good, some things bad, and the system could be / is likely to be cleaned up in the future?

Genuine question, I have heard we overpay, but the argument could be made that we don't have to pay PMC's during "peace" time.

H.

Touchy subject- contracting. I'm very happy that we have outsourced our food and life support to contractors- it frees up troops for missions that now-a-days can run the risk of being undermanned (base security, supply lines, etc aren't MOSs). However, with PMCs, that's something that is teetering on the line. For one, most PMCs run a "for-profit" game with the companies that hire them (good for them, great business model, bad for independent companies that hire them), and usually get away with it on the state dept. contracts too. For instance: Haliburton Oil execs need protection while in Iraq. US Army doesn't provide those services, in fact, the Secretary of Energy doesn't even get that, they have to hire PMC security to protect them. So, Haliburton hires Dynacorp to provide eight highly trained, well equipped guards, 2 armored SUVs, and they'll work 10 days. Here's where it gets fishy. Dynacorp Security charges $600/day (not exact figure but close) per man and pays each man $300/day (profit DSC: $300/person/day). Then factor in vehicle operating cost, meal costs, and planning and you're looking at about $2500/day- for ten days that's a $25,000 contract.
Other side of the coin. If .mil ran protection operations for company execs it would cost: $80-175 per soldier, per day. They already have weapons, vehicles and armor, so the overall contract would probably only run about $7000 for a ten day protective detail provided by Uncle Sam.
Here's where the problem lies: Soldiers cannot be tasked for private security operations. They're too busy with other stuff. The only protective security the US Army provides is for their own, and for people like the SecDef. Other than that, you are forced to use these PMCs who know what their operating costs are, who know how to make a profit, and take advantage of state dept and private corporations lack of knowledge on how much they'll cost to employ. It's an ugly business, but PMCs today are not only necessary, but they also provide great opportunity if done right. Example of done wrong: Blackwater- they had very little or no leash from US State Dept, DoD, and accountability was almost nothing. They could almost do whatever they wanted and violated the international rules concerning private contractors (no offensive operations or postures, they're only allowed to defend themselves).

I may not agree 100%, but given that I was offered a job (but need surgery and to get back in to shape whenever I get said surgery ????) by 2 PMCs to work in Afghanistan for over $210,000/yr, I really can't say that they're "bad." They just need to be regulated a little better and made to follow the rules.
10-07-2011, 15:45
funkfool

More info
10-07-2011, 15:56
Zundfolge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier

My point was more that American citizens would have gotten a lot more mileage out of infrastructure than our foray into nation building in a country with the political fault lines Iraq has.

Maybe so, maybe not ... had we not gone into Afghanistan and/or Iraq maybe Al Queda's resources wouldn't have been stretched so thin and a suitcase nuke or some of Saddam's chemical weapons could have ended up in Manhattan, LA or DC in which case I don't think you could make the case that we'd be better off with some freshly paved tarmac or a shiny new bridge in Ohio.
10-07-2011, 18:48
Byte Stryke

watch, debate
10-07-2011, 19:25
tmleadr03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

I don't understand why so many of you guys like #1.

All that trade protectionism does is increase the cost of items we want/need and reduce markets for American companies around the world.

Neither of those things helps the US economy.

Some of y'all need to read more Thomas Sowell (in particular Basic Economics and Applied Economics). For the quick answer, go here and watch clip #4.

Better yet I'll embed it:

But do go back and watch the other videos. Then go buy the books and read them.

Every one should read his books. Great knowledge in them.
10-07-2011, 19:27
tmleadr03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

I still don't understand what the obsession is with some of you guys and tariffs.

Which imports get tarrifs levied on them?

How much will the tarrifs be?

Who gets to decide?

How long will they last?

If you don't think that imposing tarrifs will just be another way the government will use taxes to try to encourage certain behaviors you're kidding yourself.

Instead of levying tarrifs to make up for our trade disadvantages, why don't we get rid of the unnecessary and/or unconstitutional laws and regulations that put us at a disadvantage in the first place?

And yes, I do want everybody to earn $0.50 an hour, lower everybody's standard of living, want people to be worked like slaves, etc. I just can't imagine how anybody would ever to be able to make a decent living without the government's help. /sarcasm

At least congress has authority to levy tarrifs IAW Article 1, Section 8. The rest of the list of demands shows total constitutional and economic ignorance. The list actually sounds a lot like the 10 pillars of communism.

What really kills me is how many deny what the result of Smoot-Hawley was.
10-07-2011, 20:53
BigMat

I LOVE THIS LIST!

Demand 14: MAGIC! MOAR MAGIC!

Demand 15: EVEN MORE MAGIC! AND MONEY TREES, which get jobs, or something.

To think I was worried these holligans would get something done, just give them a pack of gum, it should keep them busy for a few years, or at least stationary, I doubt they could walk and handle GUM!
10-07-2011, 21:59
mevshooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMat

I LOVE THIS LIST!

Demand 14: MAGIC! MOAR MAGIC!

Demand 15: EVEN MORE MAGIC! AND MONEY TREES, which get jobs, or something.

To think I was worried these holligans would get something done, just give them a pack of gum, it should keep them busy for a few years, or at least stationary, I doubt they could walk and handle GUM!

[ROFL3]

YES!
10-07-2011, 22:25
onedeadpirate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

watch, debate

So far the only thing I have heard or seen out of this whole.... whatever it is that makes any sense. I am doubting that most of the other protestors even know what he is talking about.
10-07-2011, 22:46
Elhuero

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

watch, debate

there is no debate, the guys a fuckin' idiot.

pardon my french.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page