PDA

View Full Version : Elections And now, for the adults


orange
04-21-2011, 02:23 PM
Former New Mexico gov. joins the GOP presidential pack of contenders
April 21st, 2011
10:45 AM ET

CNN's Laura Klairmont

Washington (CNN) – Joining the colorful group of Republicans throwing their hats in the ring for the 2012 presidential nomination, is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who announced his candidacy Thursday on the steps of New Hampshire's State House.

The libertarian-leaning Republican, who has been compared to the likes of Ron Paul, is an avid supporter of the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion rights in most cases. Johnson is also a vocal advocate of cutting a huge chunk - 90 percent - of the defense budget.

"Today's mess didn't just happen. We elected it-one senator, member of Congress and president at a time," Johnson said in a statement. "Our leaders in Washington, D.C., have 'led' America to record unemployment, a devalued currency, banking scandals, the mortgage crisis, drug crisis, economic crisis, loss of our nation's industrial might - and a long list of other reminders our nation is way off course."

Johnson, who was New Mexico's governor for 1995 to 2003, has spent the past year traveling the country speaking about economic issues and raising money through his nonprofit political group, Our America Initiative. The group can raise unlimited donations from corporations and individuals but does not have tax status to fund a presidential campaign.

"I look at the rest of the field running for president, and that song by The Who comes to mind. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. You know the one. We 'Won't Get Fooled Again.' What's the definition of insanity? It is to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome," Johnson said. "I'm ready for a different America. I'm ready for the day when a person can build a good life on a decent income, and we can take our government at its word – when people have more to smile about. I'm ready for peace and prosperity and some American dreaming. I'm ready for America to be AMERICA again."

Johnson will spend the rest of the week in the key early campaign state of New Hampshire, meeting with potential supporters and visiting local businesses.

–CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/former-new-mexico-governor-joins-the-gop-presidential-pack-of-contenders/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29&utm_content=Twitter

Chocolate Hog
04-21-2011, 02:26 PM
Whats your headliner have to do with the article?

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 02:26 PM
Generally, I like him. I just hope he's a supporter of federalism. If he is not, then I may have a problem, as he may be a libertarian centralizer on marijuana, gay marriage and abortion rights where there's nothing he can really do on the latter. However, if he's someone solid on cutting spending, then I just may have to toss those concerns.

orange
04-21-2011, 02:27 PM
Whats your headliner have to do with the article?

He's not a circus act for the kiddies.

blaise
04-21-2011, 02:32 PM
This story is on the Huffington Post, therefore all content is irrelevant.

Go Chiefs.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 02:42 PM
I personally think Obama is a total embarrassment. That said the right does not have a candidate that is electable IMO They have painted themselves in a corner with this bastardizing of the tea party. The republicans jumped on that movement trying to ride the momentum to breath life into a dying party. Now the leopard must figure out how to change its stripes. It is a split faction party with no clear leader~

Radar Chief
04-21-2011, 02:56 PM
I personally think Obama is a total embarrassment. That said the right does not have a candidate that is electable IMO They have painted themselves in a corner with this bastardizing of the tea party. The republicans jumped on that movement trying to ride the momentum to breath life into a dying party. Now the leopard must figure out how to change its stripes. It is a split faction party with no clear leader~

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? /John Blutarsky ;)

Jaric
04-21-2011, 02:57 PM
The libertarian-leaning Republican, who has been compared to the likes of Ron Paul, is an avid supporter of the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion rights in most cases. Johnson is also a vocal advocate of cutting a huge chunk - 90 percent - of the defense budgetWhoa. I'm all for serious cuts to defense spending (amung other things), but 90% seems a bit much. I would certainly hope he didn't try to implement that all at once.

If the rest of his politics are similar to Ron Pauls, I could see myself voting for him. Don't know enough though to say for certain.

Jaric
04-21-2011, 02:57 PM
This story is on the Huffington Post, therefore all content is irrelevant.

Go Chiefs.

God Damnit Orange, we've warned you about this, you're supposed to put a disclaimer up when you link the huffington post.

:shake:

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 03:01 PM
I wonder if congress would give him 90% cut on defense. That'd be a gigantic battle—one that would likely wind up with some cuts but hardly 90%. Sometimes you have to go that extreme just to move things in the right direction. That's just politics.

Jaric
04-21-2011, 03:04 PM
I wonder if congress would give him 90% cut on defense. That'd be a gigantic battle—one that would likely wind up with some cuts but hardly 90%. Sometimes you have to go that extreme just to move things in the right direction. That's just politics.

I'll be shocked if they'd give him any cuts on defense to be honest (assuming republicans are still in control.)

orange
04-21-2011, 03:04 PM
God Damnit Orange, we've warned you about this, you're supposed to put a disclaimer up when you link the huffington post.

:shake:

Strangely enough, I didn't. blaise is talking out his ass as usual. I came upon this roundabout by way of DrudgeReport, as a matter of fact.

Jaric
04-21-2011, 03:06 PM
Strangely enough, I didn't. blaise is talking out his ass as usual. I came upon this roundabout by way of DrudgeReport, as a matter of fact.

:spock:

Ok, but I'm watching you.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 03:12 PM
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? /John Blutarsky ;)

Shessh he is on a roll! Great scene great lines and a funny movie~

orange
04-21-2011, 03:12 PM
:spock:

Ok, but I'm watching you.

I'm not worried. You'll miss at least half my scheming if you keep squinting your left eye.

Chocolate Hog
04-21-2011, 03:29 PM
He's not a circus act for the kiddies.

I agree Johnson was a great Gov. in New Mexico. It's interesting how some of the left really like Johnson.

vailpass
04-21-2011, 03:41 PM
Cut 90% of the Defense budget? Does even the most left-leaning lilly liberal think that would be a smart thing for America to do?

Donger
04-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Great, another nut.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 03:43 PM
Great, another nut.

What's that saying again? When you can't refute....

Donger
04-21-2011, 03:44 PM
What's that saying again? When you can't refute....

A 90% decrease in defense spending is insane.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 03:45 PM
A 90% decrease in defense spending is insane.
Like he'd actually get it too.

Donger
04-21-2011, 03:46 PM
Like he'd actually get it too.

That he'd even propose it tells me he's goofy or nuts. Neither one is really appealing.

orange
04-21-2011, 03:46 PM
What's that saying again? When you can't refute....

... teach?

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 03:48 PM
That he'd even propose it tells me he's goofy or nuts. Neither one is really appealing.

Maybe he's calling their bluff just to get something decent. Like I said sometimes you have to propose more extreme cuts just to give a reality jolt. Although, I don't think he'd get through an R primary with that stand.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 03:48 PM
... teach?

No. That's "those who can't do, teach" or some such.

Chocolate Hog
04-21-2011, 03:53 PM
Great, another nut.

Great, another dumbass.

Donger
04-21-2011, 03:54 PM
Great, another dumbass.

LMAO

Bewbies
04-21-2011, 05:00 PM
Proposing a 90% defense spending cut is almost as insane as thinking he'd get it. If he thinks he'd propose and get it he's thousands of miles past birthers....

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 05:03 PM
No. That's "those who can't do, teach" or some such.

And those who cannot do or teach become management~

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 05:07 PM
And those who cannot do or teach become management~

Well I don't know. Where I come from executives were some of the hardest and most capable before becoming management. It's called paying your dues.

bowener
04-21-2011, 05:09 PM
I am still waiting for porn to be posted...

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 05:12 PM
Well I don't know. Where I come from executives were some of the hardest and most capable before becoming management. It's called paying your dues.

LMAO suck up~

Direckshun
04-21-2011, 05:16 PM
I personally think Obama is a total embarrassment. That said the right does not have a candidate that is electable IMO They have painted themselves in a corner with this bastardizing of the tea party. The republicans jumped on that movement trying to ride the momentum to breath life into a dying party. Now the leopard must figure out how to change its stripes. It is a split faction party with no clear leader~

Our disagreement over Obama aside, this is a spot on post.

blaise
04-21-2011, 05:20 PM
Strangely enough, I didn't. blaise is talking out his ass as usual. I came upon this roundabout by way of DrudgeReport, as a matter of fact.

It was also on HuffPost.

Go Chiefs.

KC Dan
04-21-2011, 05:23 PM
Our disagreement over Obama aside, this is a spot on post.:LOL:, so predictable...

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 05:29 PM
:LOL:, so predictable...

Dan I think you know I respect you and agree with you often. That said do you agree with my post?

KC Dan
04-21-2011, 05:32 PM
Dan I think you know I respect you and agree with you often. That said do you agree with my post?100% agreed. In fact, I'll go one step further. Both parties are an embarassment and have no leader because Obama sure isn't one. He's just a pied piper leading the country (rats) to the sewer.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 05:37 PM
100% agreed. In fact, I'll go one step further. Both parties are an embarassment and have no leader because Obama sure isn't one. He's just a pied piper leading the country (rats) to the sewer.

Agreed and the fact I even think Trump may be worth a look just shows how bad it is~

KC Dan
04-21-2011, 05:43 PM
Agreed and the fact I even think Trump may be worth a look just shows how bad it is~can........not..........think.......that......way..............

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 05:46 PM
can........not..........think.......that......way..............

LMAO

ROYC75
04-21-2011, 06:16 PM
100% agreed. In fact, I'll go one step further. Both parties are an embarassment and have no leader because Obama sure isn't one. He's just a pied piper leading the country (rats) to the sewer.

This and Johnson is not a solid candidate either.

Still waiting for someone that can attempt to get the job done, barring the house & senate which is one of our biggest problems.

Chocolate Hog
04-21-2011, 08:03 PM
Our disagreement over Obama aside, this is a spot on post.

Huh? If Johnson runs the country anything like he ran New Mexico he'd be a great president. Jesus Christ dude wakeup.

Fishpicker
04-21-2011, 08:16 PM
a cut of 90% to defense wouldn't be that bad so long as we gut the R&D and keep the personnel. it drives me nuts when the government unveils the latest and greatest and then they just put it on a shelf because it cost so much that we cant risk losing one.

F-22 is an example of that.

SNR
04-21-2011, 10:02 PM
Johnson's about the only Republican I could see myself going to the ballot box to vote for.

Otherwise I'm staying home in 2012

SNR
04-21-2011, 10:06 PM
One thing about Gary Johnson- he'd be by FAR the most bad ass president we've had in a long time. Perhaps since Washington

From his wiki page:

Johnson is an avid triathlete who bikes extensively and abstains from all recreational drug use, caffeine, alcohol, and some sugar products. During his term in office, he competed in several triathlons, marathons and bike races. In 1997, he took part in the Ironman Triathlon in Hawaii. He went on to finish the Hawaii Iron Man five times, the last time finishing the marathon run, 3.8-kilometre swim and 180-kilometre bike ride only two hours behind the winner. In 2003, he reached the summit of Mount Everest "despite toes blackened with frostbite." He once ran 100 miles in 30 consecutive hours in the Colorado Rockies.

In 2005, Johnson was involved in a near fatal paragliding accident when his wing got caught in a tree and he fell approximately fifty feet to the ground. Johnson suffered multiple bone fractures, including a burst fracture to his T12 vertebrae. He used marijuana for pain control from 2005 to 2008.

Johnson was married to his wife Dee from 1977 to 2005, when he initiated the separation and divorce. On December 22, 2006, Dee Johnson died of hypertensive cardiovascular disease at the age of 54.

He lives in Taos, New Mexico in a home he built himself. He has two grown children; a daughter, Seah, and a son, Erik.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2011, 10:15 PM
LMAO suck up~

Suck up? I speak from my own experience regarding myself as well as others. Ya' know an art director and creative director ( I've been both.) are executive positions in advertising and in the design world.

Direckshun
04-21-2011, 11:18 PM
One thing about Gary Johnson- he'd be by FAR the most bad ass president we've had in a long time. Perhaps since Washington

Pretty sure I'd take Teddy Roosevelt over him.

Or Ulysses Grant, or Dwight Eisenhauer. Or or or or

SNR
04-21-2011, 11:33 PM
Pretty sure I'd take Teddy Roosevelt over him.

Or Ulysses Grant, or Dwight Eisenhauer. Or or or or
Did Teddy Roosevelt do anything like climb Mt. Everest?

No he didn't. He roamed around the west having sex with cowboys and killing indians to make him seem manly and tough when he got to running for public office.

You know what they called him before he got into all that?

"The Exquisite Mr. Roosevelt"

Gay.

SNR
04-21-2011, 11:41 PM
And yeah, I got that from the Kathleen Dalton biography of Teddy Roosevelt. I know her feminist spin tends to make him out to be an asshole rather than an American legend, but parts of her book need to be taken a little more seriously than they are. Roosevelt wasn't molded by God from the dirt of America which was stained with the blood of Tim Tebow himself. He was merely an asshole who liked killing things.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 06:48 AM
F-22 is an example of that.

As cool as that plane is, you're right, it's completely unpractical as a fighter plane because the cost is too prohibitive and quite frankly it doesn't need to do all the things it does to accomplish the missions we would use it for.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 06:50 AM
One thing about Gary Johnson- he'd be by FAR the most bad ass president we've had in a long time. Perhaps since Washington

From his wiki page:

I like it!

:thumb:

jiveturkey
04-22-2011, 07:39 AM
This is my kind of candidate. I'd be like electing Bill Brasky.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 08:45 AM
There are a lot of nutcases around here when it comes to defense spending. You can't just be a little better than your adversaries unless you like your wars forced on you and you're disappointed by our low casualty rates in recent conflicts.

P.S. If you can guarantee that our only conflicts in the future will be against the likes of Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, I'll agree that the F-22 is superfluous. I don't think that's a safe design requirement though. We can probably do with fewer than originally anticipated, but it would be a mistake to scrap the capability altogether.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 09:16 AM
There are a lot of nutcases around here when it comes to defense spending. You can't just be a little better than your adversaries unless you like your wars forced on you and you're disappointed by our low casualty rates in recent conflicts.

P.S. If you can guarantee that our only conflicts in the future will be against the likes of Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, I'll agree that the F-22 is superfluous. I don't think that's a safe design requirement though. We can probably do with fewer than originally anticipated, but it would be a mistake to scrap the capability altogether.

What makes the Raptor unneccesary is that fact that the F15C Eagle is such an awesome fighter plane. And not just against places like Libya or Yemen. We can put that F15 up against any airforce in the world and I would feel confident that we would be able achieve air superiority with minimal casualties.

I get that the Raptor pushed fighter design forward, which is important. But the cost is just too prohibitive for it to be any more than a novelty.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 09:28 AM
What makes the Raptor unneccesary is that fact that the F15C Eagle is such an awesome fighter plane. And not just against places like Libya or Yemen. We can put that F15 up against any airforce in the world and I would feel confident that we would be able achieve air superiority with minimal casualties.

I get that the Raptor pushed fighter design forward, which is important. But the cost is just too prohibitive for it to be any more than a novelty.

There's really no comparison between the two when it comes to the ability to penetrate a 1st world air defense system. They're both great aircraft though.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 09:38 AM
There's really no comparison between the two when it comes to the ability to penetrate a 1st world air defense system. They're both great aircraft though.

I'm not suggesting that the Eagle is a superior fighter to the Raptor.

Only that the Eagle is far and away a good enough fighter to do what we need it to do and costs a fraction of what the Raptor costs.

Yes, if money were no object we'd have raptors as far as the eye can see. But money is an object. We have the best trained Air Force in the world flying on of the best fighter planes ever created. I have every confidence that if called upon they would be able to do what is needed in the F15.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 09:46 AM
I'm not suggesting that the Eagle is a superior fighter to the Raptor.

Only that the Eagle is far and away a good enough fighter to do what we need it to do and costs a fraction of what the Raptor costs.

Yes, if money were no object we'd have raptors as far as the eye can see. But money is an object. We have the best trained Air Force in the world flying on of the best fighter planes ever created. I have every confidence that if called upon they would be able to do what is needed in the F15.

As long as what they're called upon to do doesn't involve operations over a 1st world air defense system, perhaps. Here's the bottom line for me: The fewer Raptor-like capabilities that we settle for, the more likely a conflict with China becomes (or alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the more likely our need to bow to China's will becomes).

SNR
04-22-2011, 10:09 AM
As long as what they're called upon to do doesn't involve operations over a 1st world air defense system, perhaps. Here's the bottom line for me: The fewer Raptor-like capabilities that we settle for, the more likely a conflict with China becomes (or alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the more likely our need to bow to China's will becomes).You'd rather go to war with China than "bow to their will"?

That's insane.



(Yes, I'm making the leap. But that's kind of what it sounds like when I hear it. There's no reason that if we had our fiscal house in order that we couldn't both avoid war with China AND remain the #1 dog)

patteeu
04-22-2011, 10:25 AM
You'd rather go to war with China than "bow to their will"?

That's insane.



(Yes, I'm making the leap. But that's kind of what it sounds like when I hear it. There's no reason that if we had our fiscal house in order that we couldn't both avoid war with China AND remain the #1 dog)

That's not a very reasonable leap to take.

If it came down to it, my preference between war and capitulation would depend on what was at stake. My strong preference is to maintain the kind of military deterrent that makes such choices unnecessary, which was the whole point of that post.

BTW, good finances aren't enough to keep your top dog status. In our world, a superior military is required as well.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2011, 10:37 AM
He was merely an asshole who liked killing things.

Yup! He actually loved and glorified war.

Chocolate Hog
04-22-2011, 11:07 AM
Whenever I read Patteaus neo-con posts it just reads like bowel movements.

Baby Lee
04-22-2011, 11:13 AM
Our disagreement over Obama aside, this is a spot on post.

ROFL

CP Poster: I don't like Dems, but that doesn't mean I can't critique Reps.

Shun: Except for my own undying love for Dems, I agree with this guy.

ROFL ROFL

RedNeckRaider
04-22-2011, 11:15 AM
You'd rather go to war with China than "bow to their will"?

That's insane.



(Yes, I'm making the leap. But that's kind of what it sounds like when I hear it. There's no reason that if we had our fiscal house in order that we couldn't both avoid war with China AND remain the #1 dog)

We want no part of a war with China. Slapping around some third world dictators has given many a false sense of confidence. If it come down to a war between China and us it is a game over for the planet ending~

Pants
04-22-2011, 11:19 AM
There are a lot of nutcases around here when it comes to defense spending. You can't just be a little better than your adversaries unless you like your wars forced on you and you're disappointed by our low casualty rates in recent conflicts.

P.S. If you can guarantee that our only conflicts in the future will be against the likes of Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, I'll agree that the F-22 is superfluous. I don't think that's a safe design requirement though. We can probably do with fewer than originally anticipated, but it would be a mistake to scrap the capability altogether.

We could just be like China, not spend any money on R&D and just steal foreign designs. It sucks when America spends billions of dollars on research only to have China promptly steal that shit.

Baby Lee
04-22-2011, 11:24 AM
a cut of 90% to defense wouldn't be that bad so long as we gut the R&D and keep the personnel. it drives me nuts when the government unveils the latest and greatest and then they just put it on a shelf because it cost so much that we cant risk losing one.

F-22 is an example of that.

It is expensive, initially, but military specs drive much of our engineering excellence. The laws that govern our universe are hard taskmasters, and it takes effort to harness them. From a single transistor to the F-22 above, they say 'fuck what's 'good enough,' meet our requirements. Meanwhile, consumer grade engineering strives to be cheap enough to profit and sturdy/robust enough to not piss the consumer off, and not a bit better.

For example, Our military right now produces fighter jet fuel from, literally, algae and sunshine. It's 10x more expensive than pumping it out of the ground and refining it, but it's also fossil fuel independent and renewable.

I submit we need both, striving to engineer cheap throwaway stuff, and striving to engineer SotA, durable high performance stuff. Take the military out of the stream of commerce and you significantly cut down on the latter.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 11:55 AM
We want no part of a war with China. Slapping around some third world dictators has given many a false sense of confidence. If it come down to a war between China and us it is a game over for the planet ending~

There are more than one way of avoiding war with China. Weakness and subservience is one of them, for example, but I think it's far from the best one.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 12:00 PM
We could just be like China, not spend any money on R&D and just steal foreign designs. It sucks when America spends billions of dollars on research only to have China promptly steal that shit.

I don't think it's even close to true that China doesn't spend money on R&D although I'm sure it's true that they benefit from stolen tech.

It's the kind of myth a racist might embrace because it appeals to the notion that Americans are smarter and inherently more capable of innovation, to be honest, although I'm not saying that you're a racist. I'm just worried that some of Ron Paul and Barack Obama's racist supporters might buy into it.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 12:02 PM
I don't think it's even close to true that China doesn't spend money on R&D although I'm sure it's true that they benefit from stolen tech.

It's the kind of myth a racist might embrace because it appeals to the notion that Americans are smarter and inherently more capable of innovation, to be honest, although I'm not saying that you're a racist. I'm just worried that some of Ron Paul and Barack Obama's racist supporters might buy into it.

:spock:

Pants
04-22-2011, 12:03 PM
I don't think it's even close to true that China doesn't spend money on R&D although I'm sure it's true that they benefit from stolen tech.

It's the kind of myth a racist might embrace because it appeals to the notion that Americans are smarter and inherently more capable of innovation, to be honest, although I'm not saying that you're a racist. I'm just worried that some of Ron Paul and Barack Obama's racist supporters might buy into it.

Everyone knows that China and India produce the smartest people on Earth. It's inevitable given their population size. I wasn't implying China is incapable of innovation, we're ahead of them (as is Russia, I'm sure) and they don't have to work as hard since they're not the proverbial tip of the spear when it comes to new tech development, they can just steal our newest.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 12:16 PM
:spock:

Here's a picture of two of them with Ron. Don Black, owner of the Stormfront website, and his son Derek:

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/c7e/10a/c7e10a7e-7c37-44b8-8c64-1fec6761a793

Jaric
04-22-2011, 12:19 PM
All I'm getting is a red X

I'm still not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that it's racist to think we are out innovating China. At least from a military perspective. Because we are. Even their new "stealth plane" the J20 (which is still a prototype) won't be able to compete with the F-22, and I would doubt even the F15 since it's made for speed and not manueverability (which is the exact opposite of what you want in a dog fight)

patteeu
04-22-2011, 12:31 PM
All I'm getting is a red X

I'm still not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that it's racist to think we are out innovating China. At least from a military perspective. Because we are. Even their new "stealth plane" the J20 (which is still a prototype) won't be able to compete with the F-22, and I would doubt even the F15 since it's made for speed and not manueverability (which is the exact opposite of what you want in a dog fight)

The idea that the Chinese steal rather than innovate is the idea that I think would appeal to racists (who might assume that Chinese are less capable of innovation than we are). The fact that we lead the military tech race makes the racist assumption just mentioned more plausible, but doesn't prove it.

The F-15 and F-22 aren't really made for high maneuverability dog fighting either. And while I suspect that you're right about their superiority over the J20, it's hard to compare them without knowing what kind of avionics and weapons systems the J20 has. (Maybe someone knows these things about the J20, but I haven't read anything yet).

Edit: I found a different source for the picture so maybe that will fix the red X problem.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 12:40 PM
The idea that the Chinese steal rather than innovate is the idea that I think would appeal to racists (who might assume that Chinese are less capable of innovation than we are). The fact that we lead the military tech race makes the racist assumption just mentioned more plausible, but doesn't prove it.

The F-15 and F-22 aren't really made for high maneuverability dog fighting either. And while I suspect that you're right about their superiority over the J20, it's hard to compare them without knowing what kind of avionics and weapons systems the J20 has. (Maybe someone knows these things about the J20, but I haven't read anything yet).

Edit: I found a different source for the picture so maybe that will fix the red X problem.
Gotta disagree with you on the bolded part. Both fighters are extremely manueverable.


The F-15's maneuverability is derived from low wing loading (weight to wing area ratio) with a high thrust-to-weight ratio enabling the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed. The F-15 can climb to 30,000 ft (10,000 m) in around 60 seconds. The thrust output of the dual engines is greater than the aircraft's weight, thus giving it the ability to accelerate in a vertical climbLink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle)

The F-22 is highly maneuverable, at both supersonic and subsonic speeds. It is extremely departure-resistant,[121] enabling it to remain controllable at extreme pilot inputs. The Raptor's thrust vectoring nozzles allow the aircraft to turn tightly, and perform extremely high alpha (angle of attack) maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (or J-turn), Pugachev's Cobra,[118] and the Kulbit, though the J-Turn is more useful in combat.[118] The F-22 is also capable of maintaining a constant angle of attack of over 60°, yet still having some control of roll.[118][122] During June 2006 exercises in Alaska, F-22 pilots demonstrated that cruise altitude has a significant effect on combat performance, and routinely attributed their altitude advantage as a major factor in achieving an unblemished kill ratio against other US fighters and 4th/4.5th generation fighters.[123]

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor)

EDIT: Also, the primary function of both fighters is to secure air superiority. That means they were made and designed specifically for dogfighting.

DOUBLE EDIT: Found this as well: The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle is a twin-engine, all-weather tactical fighter designed by McDonnell Douglas to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It is considered among the most successful modern fighters with over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights

A 100-0 kill ratio is unheard of. I maintain my earlier point that if we do end up in a war with China, we should be able to obtain air superiority with a fleet of mostly F15s.

Hydrae
04-22-2011, 12:44 PM
As long as what they're called upon to do doesn't involve operations over a 1st world air defense system, perhaps. Here's the bottom line for me: The fewer Raptor-like capabilities that we settle for, the more likely a conflict with China becomes (or alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the more likely our need to bow to China's will becomes).

Why would we need to bow to China's will? Because we owe them so much money? So, let's borrow more money so we can spend it on planes so we don't have to bow to their will when they want to collect said loans.

Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:

Jaric
04-22-2011, 12:49 PM
Also Pat, the discussion about the F22 may just be academic becuase it's likely to be replaced by the F-35 which is significantly cheaper once it "gets off the ground" as it were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Pants
04-22-2011, 01:00 PM
'Chinese' is a nationality, not a race.

Inspector
04-22-2011, 01:09 PM
I wanted to read this thread but then noticed it was only for adults.

Darn it!

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2011, 01:21 PM
He's not a circus act for the kiddies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BAfKCfu74&feature=related

patteeu
04-22-2011, 01:21 PM
Gotta disagree with you on the bolded part. Both fighters are extremely manueverable.


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle)



Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor)

EDIT: Also, the primary function of both fighters is to secure air superiority. That means they were made and designed specifically for dogfighting.

DOUBLE EDIT: Found this as well:

A 100-0 kill ratio is unheard of. I maintain my earlier point that if we do end up in a war with China, we should be able to obtain air superiority with a fleet of mostly F15s.

Sorry Jaric, but I don't defer to these reports. I worked for the company that made the F-15 (and actually spent a few weeks working on that aircraft although I spent most of my time on navy aircraft projects like the F/A-18). Is it more maneuverable than a 747? By far. More maneuverable than an F-16? No way.

Air superiority means more than twirling in circles trying to get on the enemy's tail to gun him down. It also means range, speed, endurance, situation awareness and weapons/payload. The F-15 is, IMO, a far superior aircraft to the F-16 (and far more expensive as well) because it's superior in all of these areas despite being less maneuverable. The goal of the F-15 pilot should be to see the threat first and kill it before you've closed to close-in-combat range. That doesn't always work out and the F-15 still has the weapons and systems to engage close-in, but that's not what it's built for first and foremost. It does have a gun in case it needs it, though.

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2011, 01:23 PM
He's not a circus act for the kiddies.

Mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BAfKCfu74&feature=related

patteeu
04-22-2011, 01:24 PM
Why would we need to bow to China's will? Because we owe them so much money? So, let's borrow more money so we can spend it on planes so we don't have to bow to their will when they want to collect said loans.

Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:

No, because we won't have an effective military if we cut the defense budget too much. As long as the Chinese believe they can't win a conflict with us, they won't start one. If they start thinking they can, they'll be able to start pushing. Taiwan is the obvious one, but let's take things a step further. If they want us to get out of South Korea and Japan bad enough to come to blows over it, we'll have to get out of South Korea and Japan and leave them to the Chinese, for example.

Our borrowing problem is driven by the entitlements which have grown dramatically as a fraction of GDP, not defense spending which has been relatively flat.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 01:28 PM
'Chinese' is a nationality, not a race.

The Chinese are a different race (mongoloid) than white americans (caucasoids) and black americans (negroids) are. I'm sure that mongoloid supporters of Obama and Ron Paul wouldn't be among the racists I'm talking about.

Pants
04-22-2011, 01:33 PM
The Chinese are a different race (mongoloid) than white americans (caucasoids) and black americans (negroids) are. I'm sure that mongoloid supporters of Obama and Ron Paul wouldn't be among the racists I'm talking about.

Yeah, I'm still lost as to why you would even begin to think that way.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 01:35 PM
No, because we won't have an effective military if we cut the defense budget too much. As long as the Chinese believe they can't win a conflict with us, they won't start one. If they start thinking they can, they'll be able to start pushing. Taiwan is the obvious one, but let's take things a step further. If they want us to get out of South Korea and Japan bad enough to come to blows over it, we'll have to get out of South Korea and Japan and leave them to the Chinese, for example.

Our borrowing problem is driven by the entitlements which have grown dramatically as a fraction of GDP, not defense spending which has been relatively flat.

Pat, I assumed you've looked at the money we spend on defense compared to the rest of the world. I accept that if we cut it "too much" it would present a problem, but we could cut the defense budget in half and still pay more than anyone else spends on defense.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 01:44 PM
Pat, I assumed you've looked at the money we spend on defense compared to the rest of the world. I accept that if we cut it "too much" it would present a problem, but we could cut the defense budget in half and still pay more than anyone else spends on defense.

We can't just spend a little bit more than anyone else and expect to retain a military edge that continues to support our diplomatic efforts the way our current capabilities do, to deter our most powerful foes from feeling free to act against our interests whenever they please, and to provide a capability to smash the odd third world nation here and there when we decide we need to do so.

I'm OK with constantly reviewing the defense budget for inevitable waste and for constantly reviewing our requirements to make sure they're keeping up with our needs (e.g. perhaps we need fewer F-22s and more Predator drones, or fewer ships and more transport aircraft, etc.), but I'm not OK with using the defense budget like a piggy bank to support our unsustainable addiction to entitlements and subsidized domestic consumption. Since defense hasn't grown as a fraction of our economy, I don't think we should consider it a major player in our efforts to get our budget deficit under control.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 01:45 PM
Yeah, I'm still lost as to why you would even begin to think that way.

I can only lead you to the water.

Pants
04-22-2011, 01:50 PM
I can only lead you to the water.

I think that water is just a mirage of an oasis in the desert you're wandering in. Delusional much?

vailpass
04-22-2011, 01:55 PM
I think that water is just a mirage of an oasis in the desert you're wondering in. Delusional much?

I wander what you mean by that?

Pants
04-22-2011, 01:59 PM
I wander what you mean by that?

lol good catch

Jaric
04-22-2011, 02:05 PM
We can't just spend a little bit more than anyone else and expect to retain a military edge that continues to support our diplomatic efforts the way our current capabilities do, to deter our most powerful foes from feeling free to act against our interests whenever they please, and to provide a capability to smash the odd third world nation here and there when we decide we need to do so.I haven't done the math here, but I'm pretty sure if we cut defense by 50% (which I'm not advocating but for arguments sake) we'd still be spending significantly more than any other country on the planet.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Assuming these numbers are correct, we could cut our defense budget in half and still be spending more on defense than all of Asia combined.

I'm OK with constantly reviewing the defense budget for inevitable waste and for constantly reviewing our requirements to make sure they're keeping up with our needs (e.g. perhaps we need fewer F-22s and more Predator drones, or fewer ships and more transport aircraft, etc.), but I'm not OK with using the defense budget like a piggy bank to support our unsustainable addiction to entitlements and subsidized domestic consumption. Since defense hasn't grown as a fraction of our economy, I don't think we should consider it a major player in our efforts to get our budget deficit under control.I would hope by know you would know from my posts that I'm not advocating defense cuts to prevent cuts from entitlements. However, Defense is a major chunk of the budget and there is fat that needs to be trimmed. If we're serious about balancing the budget, and dare I say (Yes, dare! Dare!) paying off our debt we're going to have to cut whatever we can where ever we can cut it.

Unless the DOD has just been completely incompetent with their spending, I'm pretty confident we could withstand a 20% cut in defense spending without starting a world war because the rest of the world smells weakness.

Right now, our massive debt is a far bigger threat to our national security than a significant cut in defense spending.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 02:12 PM
I haven't done the math here, but I'm pretty sure if we cut defense by 50% (which I'm not advocating but for arguments sake) we'd still be spending significantly more than any other country on the planet.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Assuming these numbers are correct, we could cut our defense budget in half and still be spending more on defense than all of Asia combined.

I would hope by know you would know from my posts that I'm not advocating defense cuts to prevent cuts from entitlements. However, Defense is a major chunk of the budget and there is fat that needs to be trimmed. If we're serious about balancing the budget, and dare I say (Yes, dare! Dare!) paying off our debt we're going to have to cut whatever we can where ever we can cut it.

Unless the DOD has just been completely incompetent with their spending, I'm pretty confident we could withstand a 20% cut in defense spending without starting a world war because the rest of the world smells weakness.

Right now, our massive debt is a far bigger threat to our national security than a significant cut in defense spending.

I doubt that we can afford more than a 10% cut without giving up significant capabilities and I'd oppose that. We're in the middle of a global war, and that's not the time to be hollowing out our military. We might be able to get by with a freeze but I see no reason for major cuts in the part of our budget that is most properly a duty of our government and among the least to blame for our current budget crisis.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 02:21 PM
I doubt that we can afford more than a 10% cut without giving up significant capabilities and I'd oppose that. We're in the middle of a global war, and that's not the time to be hollowing out our military. We might be able to get by with a freeze but I see no reason for major cuts in the part of our budget that is most properly a duty of our government and among the least to blame for our current budget crisis.

Pat, who exactly are you afraid of here? Excluding Europe (who is by and large friendly with us, at least to the point where they wouldn't as a group attack us) we are still spending almost twice what the rest of the world spends. That includes Central and South America and Africa which are not going to attack us. Asia Spends about 275 billion, but that includes India, Japan, Australia, and Indonesia. None of who are going to attack us.

China and Russia TOGETHER account just about 10% of the worlds spending on Defense. The US accounts for 46.5%

If you really don't believe we could not withstand more than a 10% cut in defense, that doesn't speak highly of your opinion of how effeciently we've been spending that money compared to the rest of the world.

EDIT: BTW Pat, if you want to talk about entitlement spending cuts, start a thread and we can spend the whole thing just holding hands and agreeing with each other. I haven't talked about it here because this thread turning into a thread about military spending.

vailpass
04-22-2011, 02:22 PM
Pat, who exactly are you afraid of here? Excluding Europe (who is by and large friendly with us, at least to the point where they wouldn't as a group attack us) we are still spending almost twice what the rest of the world spends. That includes Central and South America and Africa which are not going to attack us. Asia Spends about 275 billion, but that includes India, Japan, Australia, and Indonesia. None of who are going to attack us.

China and Russia TOGETHER account just about 10% of the worlds spending on Defense. The US accounts for 46.5%

If you really don't believe we could not withstand more than a 10% cut in defense, that doesn't speak highly of your opinion of how effeciently we've been spending that money compared to the rest of the world.

You don't get it.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 02:24 PM
You don't get it.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion...

vailpass
04-22-2011, 02:37 PM
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion...

n00b says what? This ground has been covered umpteen times over the years. The fact you are spouting the same erroneous shit that has been spouted many times before you doesn't mean I have to go to lengths to repeat why you are clueless.

If you think being just a little bit ahead of the world in military strength is sufficient you aren't thinking. We don't need a military that could probably win, we need a military that is so vastly superior that nobody in the world would dream of confronting us.

The purpose of the military is not to win large scale wars, the purpose of the military is to keep them from ever happening.

Those countries you say are our friends are our friends in large part because of who we are, because it makes the most sense for them to align themselves with us. If the balance of power shifted so would many of our allies. By allowing our military preparedness level to deteriorate we would be letting down those allies you cite.

Those countries that hate the US don't band together and wage a campaign of global terrorism against us, our citizens and interest abroad and our soldiers around the world for one reason: to this day they still know in the backs of their minds that if they should ever go so far as to wake us up that will mean the end for them.

If you are willing to surrender our military superiority you are willing to surrender a lot more whether you realize it or not.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 02:39 PM
Pat, who exactly are you afraid of here? Excluding Europe (who is by and large friendly with us, at least to the point where they wouldn't as a group attack us) we are still spending almost twice what the rest of the world spends. That includes Central and South America and Africa which are not going to attack us. Asia Spends about 275 billion, but that includes India, Japan, Australia, and Indonesia. None of who are going to attack us.

China and Russia TOGETHER account just about 10% of the worlds spending on Defense. The US accounts for 46.5%

If you really don't believe we could not withstand more than a 10% cut in defense, that doesn't speak highly of your opinion of how effeciently we've been spending that money compared to the rest of the world.

I'm not afraid of anyone in particular although I'd say that Iran is the most immediate threat to our interests and China is the most concern long term.

I don't agree with your final paragraph. We have a large defense budget partly because we operate on the bleeding edge of technology in order to make up for our limited ability to field overwhelming numbers and partly because we are the only nation on Earth that defends global interests. We could possibly make due by getting some of the countries we're friendly with to take on a greater role in their own defense (e.g. South Korea, Japan, NATO, etc.) but doing so would degrade the diplomatic leverage we have in those countries at the same time and I'm not sure the loss of influence is really worth the money we could save, particularly if the alternative were to drive these "client states" into the arms of a new patron like China (as could happen in the case of South Korea, for example).

patteeu
04-22-2011, 02:45 PM
N00b says what? This ground has been covered umpteen times over the years. The fact you are spouting the same erroneous shit that has been spouted many times before you doesn't mean I have to go to lengths to repeat why you are clueless.

If you think being just a little bit ahead of the world in military strength is sufficient you aren't thinking. We don't need a military that could probably win, we need a military that is so vastly superior that nobody in the world would dream of confronting us.

The purpose of the military is not to win large scale wars, the purpose of the military is to keep them from ever happening.

Those countries you say are our friends are our friends in large part because of who we are, because it makes the most sense for them to align themselves with us. If the balance of power shifted so would many of our allies. By allowing our military preparedness level to deteriorate we would be letting down those allies you cite.

Those countries that hate the US don't band together and wage a campaign of global terrorism against us, our citizens and interest abroad and our soldiers around the world for one reason: to this day they still know in the backs of their minds that if they should ever go so far as to wake us up that will mean the end for them.

If you are willing to surrender our military superiority you are willing to surrender a lot more whether you realize it or not.

Now now, mind your manners, vailpass. You make outstanding points in this post, but let's be gentle with our noobs at least until we find out they are liberals like orange or live in some kind of weird alternative universe like BEP. ;)

Jaric
04-22-2011, 02:47 PM
we are the only nation on Earth that defends global interests.

And we come to the heart of the issue. And one I don't think you and I will probably come to terms with despite our general politics being pretty similar.

I'll just remind you that uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, and agree to disagree on this issue.

vailpass
04-22-2011, 02:47 PM
Now now, mind your manners, vailpass. You make outstanding points in this post, but let's be gentle with our noobs at least until we find out they are liberals like orange or live in some kind of weird alternative universe like BEP. ;)

I get a little edgy at the thought of the US no longer operating from a position of strength. I get downright sick at the thought of us doing so by choice.

vailpass
04-22-2011, 02:48 PM
And we come to the heart of the issue. And one I don't think you and I will probably come to terms with despite our general politics being pretty similar.

I'll just remind you that uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, and agree to disagree on this issue.

Would you rather the US wore that crown or some other country?
Someone is going to wear that crown.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 02:49 PM
n00b says what? This ground has been covered umpteen times over the years. The fact you are spouting the same erroneous shit that has been spouted many times before you doesn't mean I have to go to lengths to repeat why you are clueless.

If you think being just a little bit ahead of the world in military strength is sufficient you aren't thinking. We don't need a military that could probably win, we need a military that is so vastly superior that nobody in the world would dream of confronting us.

The purpose of the military is not to win large scale wars, the purpose of the military is to keep them from ever happening.

Those countries you say are our friends are our friends in large part because of who we are, because it makes the most sense for them to align themselves with us. If the balance of power shifted so would many of our allies. By allowing our military preparedness level to deteriorate we would be letting down those allies you cite.

Those countries that hate the US don't band together and wage a campaign of global terrorism against us, our citizens and interest abroad and our soldiers around the world for one reason: to this day they still know in the backs of their minds that if they should ever go so far as to wake us up that will mean the end for them.

If you are willing to surrender our military superiority you are willing to surrender a lot more whether you realize it or not.

A 20% cut (which is all I've proposed) to that won't destroy our military you little shit.

Now park your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have neither the time nor patience to waste words with a witless cretin.

vailpass
04-22-2011, 02:55 PM
A 20% cut (which is all I've proposed) to that won't destroy our military you little shit.

Now park your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have neither the time nor patience to waste words with a witless cretin.

Witless cretin? LMAO That's the same thing your mom called me when I wiped it off on her curtains.
Have you met direckshun, orange and Dave Loon?

If you think a 20% budget cut is minor then you don't have the credibility to carry on this conversation.

vailpass
04-22-2011, 03:00 PM
What are you, 12?

God this is weird. For the second post in a row you have said the same thing to me your mom did last night.

Jaric
04-22-2011, 03:02 PM
Suddenly the thread title became incredibly ironic.

vailpass
04-22-2011, 03:03 PM
Suddenly the thread title became incredibly ironic.

See what happens when your defense is inferior?

orange
04-22-2011, 03:24 PM
... until we find out they are liberals like orange

Watch your mouth, noob!

go bowe
04-22-2011, 04:02 PM
Mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BAfKCfu74&feature=related

hey, crapster...

good to see you posting again...

you worry me when you go off and enjoy rl and don't give us our daily dose of, err not bullshit, but insightful commentary... :)

go bowe
04-22-2011, 04:14 PM
n00b says what? This ground has been covered umpteen times over the years. The fact you are spouting the same erroneous shit that has been spouted many times before you doesn't mean I have to go to lengths to repeat why you are clueless.

If you think being just a little bit ahead of the world in military strength is sufficient you aren't thinking. We don't need a military that could probably win, we need a military that is so vastly superior that nobody in the world would dream of confronting us.

The purpose of the military is not to win large scale wars, the purpose of the military is to keep them from ever happening.

Those countries you say are our friends are our friends in large part because of who we are, because it makes the most sense for them to align themselves with us. If the balance of power shifted so would many of our allies. By allowing our military preparedness level to deteriorate we would be letting down those allies you cite.

Those countries that hate the US don't band together and wage a campaign of global terrorism against us, our citizens and interest abroad and our soldiers around the world for one reason: to this day they still know in the backs of their minds that if they should ever go so far as to wake us up that will mean the end for them.

If you are willing to surrender our military superiority you are willing to surrender a lot more whether you realize it or not.

i dunno, wasn't 9/11 a wake up call for you?

we've tried very hard to "end them" and have made significant progress, but it simply isn't possible as a practical matter...

vailpass
04-22-2011, 04:19 PM
i dunno, wasn't 9/11 a wake up call for you?

we've tried very hard to "end them" and have made significant progress, but it simply isn't possible as a practical matter...

9-11 was not enough to make us think it is us or them. "Us or them" means we can't afford to worry about collateral damage or international opinion.

We have not "tried very hard to end them". If we truly thought it was us or them there would no longer be a "them".

SNR
04-22-2011, 04:21 PM
Witless cretin? LMAO That's the same thing your mom called me when I wiped it off on her curtains.
Have you met direckshun, orange and Dave Loon?

If you think a 20% budget cut is minor then you don't have the credibility to carry on this conversation.Question: If the US military disappeared for one entire day, would the world blow up?

vailpass
04-22-2011, 04:28 PM
Question: If the US military disappeared for one entire day, would the world blow up?

Hard saying. There would be a scavenging party at our conventional and nuclear weapons facilities around the world, that's for sure. A lot of things would go boom shortly thereafter.

The north-south Korean area might be a place to avoid on that day.

go bowe
04-22-2011, 04:30 PM
9-11 was not enough to make us think it is us or them. "Us or them" means we can't afford to worry about collateral damage or international opinion.

We have not "tried very hard to end them". If we truly thought it was us or them there would no longer be a "them".

us or them should not mean that america, where individual life is damn near sacred, should ever stop worrying about collateral damage... letting terrorists force us to give up our values is just plain wrong...

besides, with smart weapons there isn't much in the way of collateral damage anyway, so why would we want to return to the days of indiscriminate bombing, or does us or them include everybody in the general area, so long as they are muslims?

patteeu
04-22-2011, 04:38 PM
Question: If the US military disappeared for one entire day, would the world blow up?

Probably not, as long as everyone knew it was going to be back in 24 hours.

vailpass
04-22-2011, 04:38 PM
us or them should not mean that america, where individual life is damn near sacred, should ever stop worrying about collateral damage... letting terrorists force us to give up our values is just plain wrong...

besides, with smart weapons there isn't much in the way of collateral damage anyway, so why would we want to return to the days of indiscriminate bombing, or does us or them include everybody in the general area, so long as they are muslims?

Us or them means losing individual lives is a foregone cnclusion, the only thing left to be decided is whose individual lives will be lost. It means declaring war and acting accordingly within the constructs of that situation. We have not done so.

HonestChieffan
04-22-2011, 04:49 PM
Probably not, as long as everyone knew it was going to be back in 24 hours.

Under Obama, I would bet that the 24 hour claim will be ignored and he will go on vacation, play golf, and the wookie will appear at a food stall in an Organic market.

patteeu
04-22-2011, 05:01 PM
us or them should not mean that america, where individual life is damn near sacred, should ever stop worrying about collateral damage... letting terrorists force us to give up our values is just plain wrong...

besides, with smart weapons there isn't much in the way of collateral damage anyway, so why would we want to return to the days of indiscriminate bombing, or does us or them include everybody in the general area, so long as they are muslims?

I don't think our values include being more concerned about collateral damage than about our vital interests. If Russia were to launch a nuclear salvo at us, for example, I don't think it would prevent us (nor should it) from launching a decisive return volley even knowing that it's liable to kill a lot of innocent Russian civilians who had nothing to do with the decision to attack us.

Avoiding collateral damage is a luxury that we can and should afford when possible, but it can't be an inviolable fundmental value.

I'm sure you agree with this, more or less.

go bowe
04-22-2011, 07:58 PM
I don't think our values include being more concerned about collateral damage than about our vital interests. If Russia were to launch a nuclear salvo at us, for example, I don't think it would prevent us (nor should it) from launching a decisive return volley even knowing that it's liable to kill a lot of innocent Russian civilians who had nothing to do with the decision to attack us.

Avoiding collateral damage is a luxury that we can and should afford when possible, but it can't be an inviolable fundmental value.

I'm sure you agree with this, more or less.a nuclear attack from a state is a far cry from terrorists attacks from some shadowy lair...

there is no massive annihilation of millions of americans and there is no defined state to counterattack...

in the case of killing muslim terrorists - "them" - there is no reason not to avoid collateral damage as killing civilians isn't going to win the war on terror anyway...

it's true that under some circumstances, the wisdom of avoiding collateral damage can be outweighed by national interests, but our national interests are not served by indiscriminate killing of civilians in the me or afghanistan...

patteeu
04-22-2011, 08:47 PM
a nuclear attack from a state is a far cry from terrorists attacks from some shadowy lair...

there is no massive annihilation of millions of americans and there is no defined state to counterattack...

in the case of killing muslim terrorists - "them" - there is no reason not to avoid collateral damage as killing civilians isn't going to win the war on terror anyway...

it's true that under some circumstances, the wisdom of avoiding collateral damage can be outweighed by national interests, but our national interests are not served by indiscriminate killing of civilians in the me or afghanistan...

I don't think vailpass intended to limit his comment to limited terrorist attacks. There's a spectrum of attacks from the most limited, non-lethal attack to nuclear armageddon. I think he's saying that if the threat becomes great enough, we take the kid gloves off, and I agree with him. In a way, 9/11 provoked a less restrained response than our typical speech of condemnation or standoff cruise missile strike, but it didn't come close to provoking the kind of all out response we'd have if we believed we faced an imminent and existential threat.

I think we're all on the same page here, more or less. Our agreement is greater than our differences, in any event.

RJ
04-22-2011, 09:45 PM
Gary Johnson is the real deal. Whether or not you like what he's saying, he means it. He's not pandering to any particular group. What he says is what he believes. I think voters would really like him if they got the chance to know him.

stevieray
04-22-2011, 09:52 PM
Gary Johnson is the real deal. Whether or not you like what he's saying, he means it. He's not pandering to any particular group. What he says is what he believes. I think voters would really like him if they got the chance to know him.

thanks, i'll check him out. respect your recommendation

SNR
04-22-2011, 09:55 PM
I think voters would really like him if they got the chance to know him.They won't

Chocolate Hog
04-22-2011, 09:56 PM
Gary Johnson is the real deal. Whether or not you like what he's saying, he means it. He's not pandering to any particular group. What he says is what he believes. I think voters would really like him if they got the chance to know him.


He did a great job running New Mexico.

SNR
04-22-2011, 11:15 PM
This thread makes me feel like John Hammond from Jurassic Park:

I don't believe it! Hah! I don't believe it! Conservatives are supposed to come here and defend me against these statists and the only one I've got on my side is the bloodsucking liberal!

go bowe
04-23-2011, 11:19 AM
I don't think vailpass intended to limit his comment to limited terrorist attacks. There's a spectrum of attacks from the most limited, non-lethal attack to nuclear armageddon. I think he's saying that if the threat becomes great enough, we take the kid gloves off, and I agree with him. In a way, 9/11 provoked a less restrained response than our typical speech of condemnation or standoff cruise missile strike, but it didn't come close to provoking the kind of all out response we'd have if we believed we faced an imminent and existential threat.

I think we're all on the same page here, more or less. Our agreement is greater than our differences, in any event.

i'd agree with that...

go bowe
04-23-2011, 11:19 AM
This thread makes me feel like John Hammond from Jurassic Park:

I don't believe it! Hah! I don't believe it! Conservatives are supposed to come here and defend me against these statists and the only one I've got on my side is the bloodsucking liberal!statists?

what, are you channeling bep now?

SNR
04-23-2011, 12:11 PM
statists?

what, are you channeling bep now?BEP doesn't have claim to that term.

go bowe
04-23-2011, 06:05 PM
pfffft...

details, details...

Jaric
04-23-2011, 06:06 PM
BEP doesn't have claim to that term.

If not, she probably owes all her casino cash to someone for the royalties.

The Mad Crapper
04-23-2011, 06:37 PM
hey, crapster...

good to see you posting again...

you worry me when you go off and enjoy rl and don't give us our daily dose of, err not bullshit, but insightful commentary... :)

Sneak preview of The One's next speech:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/04/obamas-next-spe.html

LMAO

go bowe
04-23-2011, 06:58 PM
Sneak preview of The One's next speech:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/04/obamas-next-spe.html

LMAOthat was good for the first few seconds, but the braying got kinda old after that...

besides, the donkey wasn't using a teleprompter and everyone knows that the president always uses a teleprompter to avoid saying uh, eleventy hundred times in every sentence...

Fishpicker
04-24-2011, 02:10 AM
It is expensive, initially, but military specs drive much of our engineering excellence. The laws that govern our universe are hard taskmasters, and it takes effort to harness them. From a single transistor to the F-22 above, they say '**** what's 'good enough,' meet our requirements. Meanwhile, consumer grade engineering strives to be cheap enough to profit and sturdy/robust enough to not piss the consumer off, and not a bit better.

For example, Our military right now produces fighter jet fuel from, literally, algae and sunshine. It's 10x more expensive than pumping it out of the ground and refining it, but it's also fossil fuel independent and renewable.

I submit we need both, striving to engineer cheap throwaway stuff, and striving to engineer SotA, durable high performance stuff. Take the military out of the stream of commerce and you significantly cut down on the latter.

I get what you're saying and I agree. we have the F-22 and that's great, lets get that thing up in the air. that way we can utilize what we have and retire the legacy aircraft. flying and maintaining a new plane is way less expensive than keeping something that was designed in the 60's fully maintained. I just hate seeing waste on both ends.

orange
04-24-2011, 04:25 PM
Gary Johnson: The Guy That Barack Obama Should Worry About
Posted: 04/23/11 05:39 PM ET

Former Republican Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson announced his intention to run on the Republican ticket for President in 2012 to a crowd estimated at 18 people. Here's why Barack Obama should be good and scared of this dark-horse candidate.

I was in the sports news business working out of Santa Fe, New Mexico, when Gary Johnson was the governor of the state. A rancher from the Northern part of the state, he went after the old-boy political machine run by the Spanish who have run things in New Mexico since the conquistador Don Juan de Oñate marched into the area that became Santa Fe in 1598.

As governor, Johnson was a strong fiscal conservative, and a social moderate. He had broad appeal, even amongst centrist Democrats, many of whom crossed party lines and voted for him. He was laid back. He shunned the Governor's mansion and the entourage which were a hallmark of Bill Richardson's tenure as governor of New Mexico. In fact, on a Sunday, more often than not you could find the Gov sitting at a table at Bagelmania in Downtown Santa Fe, reading the paper and having breakfast with his wife. He took the time to say hello, and even asked about your kids.

That belies the toughness with which he ran the ship of state in New Mexico. The legislature there only meets for a few weeks each year. Johnson routinely used his veto powers to threaten the legislature into coming to terms with tough issues when the partisanship fractured the Round House.

National political analysts still mislabel Johnson as your Dr. Paul fringe candidate. True, Johnson has been an advocate over the last year for the legalization of Marijuana, a controversial stance which even President Obama has shied away from, which definitely alienates him from many in the fundamentalist religious base of the national GOP. It does, however, open the door for him with many liberals who are dissatisfied with Mr. Obama, and many independent voters, and he approaches the issue from a tax-dollars bottom line, which might even find a few libertarian and fiscal conservative adherents.

Johnson is making the calculation that the pack of ultra-Right partisans with their hat in the ring or putting their toe in the water may have what it takes to appease various fragments of the extreme wing of the party that runs from the Tea Party to the Birthers to Corporate types like the Koch Brothers. What most running don't have though right now, is electability in a general election.

Mitt Romney, arguably the front-runner in current polls at around 16%, is a fatally-flawed candidate. Religious zealots don't like his Mormonism. He will not easily explain away Romneycare to the Health Care bashers. He would almost certainly have to run to the far Right to get the nomination, then spend the next year running away from everything that he just said to win the general.

Johnson is going to have a tough time surviving the primaries, particularly navigating the crazy waters of the fractious Tea Party. His tough, common-sense, low-key style worked in New Mexico, though, at a time when that state suffered from much of the same kind of partisan divide that the federal government experiences now.

His downside is that his style, his business acumen as a rancher, and his limited experience in the bigger shark tank of party politics may play well to folks who want more outsiders in government, but may make it very difficult for him to raise money, get much media attention, or even run a country controlled by insiders if he beats the deck stacked against him and succeeds.

Still, he is going to win converts. If he makes it to the general election, he has enough expertise at wooing skeptical independents and even fiscally conservative liberals into taking a serious look at him.

And he'd get Bill Maher's vote for the pot position.

My shiny two.

Published with permission from Brian Ross' blog at Truth-2-Power.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-ross/gary-johnson-2012_b_852558.html

Chocolate Hog
04-24-2011, 04:43 PM
Johnson was an awesome gov and I'd vote for him been saying that for 2 years but theres no way Barack Obama should be affraid of Johnson. Theres no way a pro-choice candidate would win the nomination. Ron Paul has a better chance than Johnson.

SNR
04-24-2011, 10:51 PM
Johnson was an awesome gov and I'd vote for him been saying that for 2 years but theres no way Barack Obama should be affraid of Johnson. Theres no way a pro-choice candidate would win the nomination. Ron Paul has a better chance than Johnson.How he does in this opening debate in May will tell us a lot about what kind campaign he'll run and if he can gain believers like Huckabee did last go-around.

Chocolate Hog
04-24-2011, 10:56 PM
How he does in this opening debate in May will tell us a lot about what kind campaign he'll run and if he can gain believers like Huckabee did last go-around.

Yea but the difference is Huckabee was able to represent the religious right when the other top tier candidates were moderates. I just don't see what base Johnson can play to in the Republican party. I do agree with the article he would run great in a general election.

Count Zarth
04-24-2011, 11:35 PM
Correct if wrong, but wouldn't cutting the defense budget by 90 percent mean even MORE unemployment?

Fishpicker
04-25-2011, 03:46 AM
Correct if wrong, but wouldn't cutting the defense budget by 90 percent mean even MORE unemployment?

most likely yes.