Posted by strikeout26 on 7/6/2018 4:14:00 PM (view original):
I agree with Tang. Way too much wasted money and fluff in the military budget. Actually there is way too much wasted money in all sectors of government, which is one reason why I don't understand why Tang puts so much faith in government. Government can't seem to do anything right.

Bureaucracy.

We have departments that were created by people who were never given authority by a vote. They were created by and thru legislators. That's the end of any representation we may have had in the creation of the cancer.

These people create law. They are nameless and faceless. They feed off you and are unwittingly supported by you.

A legislative law, like Dodd-Frank, at least has a name on it and can be traced. It was voted on by people you voted for.

A new law voted on in committee of appointed people who were appointed by other people who were appointed by a long dead legislator in a department long since unviable or duplicated to the umpth degree by other legislators or beaurcratic committees, is now too far removed from the people. The control has been shifted from a representative vote to an in-house self-contained entity bent more on justifying their existence than representing the people.

It is survival of the fittest turned on its head. It is cannibalism of resources and productivity preformed in the dark behind a curtain. And they will survive. At your expense.

And I don't have the answer to the very thing that has killed every civilization in history. Except one. And I doubt we have the will.

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 5:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/6/2018 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 10:36:00 AM (view original):
I can see Berkley banning the KKK or BLM but Ben Shapiro is super benign. Those people are insane. Like bad luck.

The ACLU has fought for the KKK (and from a constitutional perspective rightfully so) to hold rallies, march in parades, etc., and won those cases. I'm not sure, if pressed to the legal limit, Berkeley could exclude any group that was determined to speak on campus. So far, Berkeley has gotten away with it mostly through intimidation and bluffing. If Berkeley actually outright refused (and went to court to defend that refusal,) it would cost every university professor their right to free speech which they exercise so frequently and declare themselves immune to repercussions based on those free speech protections.

Why would Berkeley have to go to court. If I want to go speak there, do they have to allow it? Do they have to let me use an amphitheater?

They should being a publicly funded school. I can see blatant hate groups being boycotted but not Bill Mahr or Ben Shapiro. That is just plain stupid.

So the school has to allow EVERYONE that wants to speak a space to do so? Or do they get the discretion to decide who can have an audience there?

Not everyone. I can't walk onto campus and start holding a rally because I am not a student and have not been invited by a chartered student organization. However, if a chartered student organization at the school wants to bring a speaker to campus and they file the appropriate paperwork, they must allow that speaker to appear. Berkeley has already set a decades-long precedent by allowing the Young Maoists/Young Communists/Young Marxists, whatever, to bring their chosen speakers. The university can not selectively choose which student groups get to invite speakers. The excuse, up to this point, has been violent protests (by activists or students) are creating an unsafe environment. The university must either provide a safe environment for all speakers or prevent all speakers from appearing. If it went to court, Berkeley would lose in a big way...legally, financially and reputation.

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 12:19:00 PM (view original):
How do you produce cheaper jets? The cost is the sum of its parts? LOL.

So now you're going to tell Lockheed Martin that you will pay less for the jets, so would that not impact jobs, safety, innovation, etc? You do realize, Tang, that the military does not build its own jets, it buys them from the private sector, which is why when you increase that budget you also help out the private sector. I swear my middle school kids are smarter than you.

The relation of jets to costs is much different here than it is for places like China and Russia, right? That's because we spend more money on individual jets. Yes, we buy them from the private sector. But you are talking jobs. The same amount of jets means the same amount of jobs. You are acting like not spending 700 billion on the military will destroy the economy. Spending, say, 500 billion on the military will still be the most in the world.

What? No China and Russia spend the same per jet. And lowering the budget by $200mil would cost jobs and companies to go bankrupt. See Sequester.

Are you insane?

No, they don't compared to us. We spend way more on project jets that cost billions. How many jobs?

Go and look at the Lockheed 10K

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 10:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/5/2018 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/5/2018 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Why are we cutting the military budget, that actually generates jobs vs. addressing entitlements?

Cutting the military budget won't mean less jobs generated.

How so? Do you know how many sub contractors rely on the military? That is such an ignorant and incorrect statement.

Cutting any government spending reduces jobs.

How would cutting entitlements reduce jobs? Do tell.

What entitlement are you talking about?

Medicare and Medicaid

So we cut Medicare. The dollars we were spending are no longer being spent. You don’t think that impacts jobs?

No. If a procedure costs $100...have more go out of pocket. Period.

Doctor still gets paid.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 5:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/6/2018 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 10:36:00 AM (view original):
I can see Berkley banning the KKK or BLM but Ben Shapiro is super benign. Those people are insane. Like bad luck.

The ACLU has fought for the KKK (and from a constitutional perspective rightfully so) to hold rallies, march in parades, etc., and won those cases. I'm not sure, if pressed to the legal limit, Berkeley could exclude any group that was determined to speak on campus. So far, Berkeley has gotten away with it mostly through intimidation and bluffing. If Berkeley actually outright refused (and went to court to defend that refusal,) it would cost every university professor their right to free speech which they exercise so frequently and declare themselves immune to repercussions based on those free speech protections.

Why would Berkeley have to go to court. If I want to go speak there, do they have to allow it? Do they have to let me use an amphitheater?

They should being a publicly funded school. I can see blatant hate groups being boycotted but not Bill Mahr or Ben Shapiro. That is just plain stupid.

So the school has to allow EVERYONE that wants to speak a space to do so? Or do they get the discretion to decide who can have an audience there?

They have logical discretion. I don't think NAMBLA should be speaking there. Although you'd probably attend.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 10:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2018 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/5/2018 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Liberal outrage at Berkley --- 600 police officers hired when Ben Shapiro wanted to speak there. LOL.

Talk about free speech.

Conservative outrage in America—the President freaks out when NFL players kneel. LOL

Talk about free speech.

False equivalency. NFL players are employees who in many eyes disrespected veterans. Since the color guard is always out and the announcer says "please stand so we can honor those who served".

You just cannot accept that you are ever wrong.

The constitution gives Ben Shapiro as much right to speak at Berkeley as it does the NFL players the right to kneel. Meaning, they are both protected from government action but not guaranteed a forum. The NFL, Berkeley, etc do not have to allow them the space to speak.

Indeed they don't but there were those that wanted to hear him speak. Have you ever heard him speak? He is at best benign. Yet people rioted because they did not like what he had to say and it took 600 police officers to hold them at bay. The fact that you cannot see that this is insanity is mind boggling to me. He actually does a Q & A at the end of each speech and welcomes those that oppose his views to speak first and debate very civilly.

You are honestly a terrible person and very one sided. Yes, I would say that to your face too.

People protested. They excercised their right to free speech also. Shapiro is free to stand on a street corner and say anything he wants. He isn’t guaranteed a hosted speaking engagement at a university.

But half the student body wanted him there and the half that whined and cried got their way. Are you saying that 100% of the students did not want him there or did a select few ruin it for the majority. As I said, Ben is a conservative but he never preaches violence or intolerance and encourages debates.

How do you know “half the student body” wanted him there?

It was more than half. Because I watched a news program on it. That was when I first learned about him.

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 12:19:00 PM (view original):
How do you produce cheaper jets? The cost is the sum of its parts? LOL.

So now you're going to tell Lockheed Martin that you will pay less for the jets, so would that not impact jobs, safety, innovation, etc? You do realize, Tang, that the military does not build its own jets, it buys them from the private sector, which is why when you increase that budget you also help out the private sector. I swear my middle school kids are smarter than you.

The relation of jets to costs is much different here than it is for places like China and Russia, right? That's because we spend more money on individual jets. Yes, we buy them from the private sector. But you are talking jobs. The same amount of jets means the same amount of jobs. You are acting like not spending 700 billion on the military will destroy the economy. Spending, say, 500 billion on the military will still be the most in the world.

What? No China and Russia spend the same per jet. And lowering the budget by $200mil would cost jobs and companies to go bankrupt. See Sequester.

Are you insane?

No, they don't compared to us. We spend way more on project jets that cost billions. How many jobs?

Go and look at the Lockheed 10K

I looked, it up, don't know what to look for.

Our military aircraft are superior to all others. Capability, workmanship, research and development, spare parts procurement. We pay more for the quality product.

Labor costs drive up the price. We can't compete with the Chinese on that.

We need to strive to be as efficient as possible. Trump has been vocal fighting for fairness from the manufacturers on costs. So what if he gets them ****** off? Results matter.

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 8:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 12:19:00 PM (view original):
How do you produce cheaper jets? The cost is the sum of its parts? LOL.

So now you're going to tell Lockheed Martin that you will pay less for the jets, so would that not impact jobs, safety, innovation, etc? You do realize, Tang, that the military does not build its own jets, it buys them from the private sector, which is why when you increase that budget you also help out the private sector. I swear my middle school kids are smarter than you.

The relation of jets to costs is much different here than it is for places like China and Russia, right? That's because we spend more money on individual jets. Yes, we buy them from the private sector. But you are talking jobs. The same amount of jets means the same amount of jobs. You are acting like not spending 700 billion on the military will destroy the economy. Spending, say, 500 billion on the military will still be the most in the world.

What? No China and Russia spend the same per jet. And lowering the budget by $200mil would cost jobs and companies to go bankrupt. See Sequester.

Are you insane?

No, they don't compared to us. We spend way more on project jets that cost billions. How many jobs?

Go and look at the Lockheed 10K

I looked, it up, don't know what to look for.

The extra commas are bothering me in this coming from a professional writer.

Grammar police? Don't sweat the small stuff...

Nah, Tang and I have a good relationship and mutual respect. We have been making fun jabs at each other for a while now.

This is actually a pretty damn decent thread, considering the volatile topic.

Yep. Some pretty intelligent people from both sides of the political spectrum contribute and for the most part the conversation remains civil.

I wish Taint would contribute more. I rarely agree with his opinions and he ****** me off at times, but he does offer well thought out points.

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/6/2018 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 8:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/6/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/6/2018 12:19:00 PM (view original):
How do you produce cheaper jets? The cost is the sum of its parts? LOL.

So now you're going to tell Lockheed Martin that you will pay less for the jets, so would that not impact jobs, safety, innovation, etc? You do realize, Tang, that the military does not build its own jets, it buys them from the private sector, which is why when you increase that budget you also help out the private sector. I swear my middle school kids are smarter than you.

The relation of jets to costs is much different here than it is for places like China and Russia, right? That's because we spend more money on individual jets. Yes, we buy them from the private sector. But you are talking jobs. The same amount of jets means the same amount of jobs. You are acting like not spending 700 billion on the military will destroy the economy. Spending, say, 500 billion on the military will still be the most in the world.

What? No China and Russia spend the same per jet. And lowering the budget by $200mil would cost jobs and companies to go bankrupt. See Sequester.

Are you insane?

No, they don't compared to us. We spend way more on project jets that cost billions. How many jobs?

Go and look at the Lockheed 10K

I looked, it up, don't know what to look for.

The extra commas are bothering me in this coming from a professional writer.

Oops, just noticed that. I typed that directly after hurting my forearm so I was in a lot of pain and was using one hand. I obviously didn't mean to put a comma there.