Andy9o8 0 #26 April 29, 2013 QuoteIt's not about "military-industrial." It's about pork This is no different from any other pork, only it is about a military topic. That's really consistent w/the point I was trying to make. But you're right, it's about pork - in this instance, the industrial side, of the military-industrial side, of pork. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #27 April 29, 2013 QuoteI understand what you just said but my question is if they are going to go out and spend all this $$$ on something as needless as tanks why not invest that money in something the army could actually use instead. They don't do that because quite a few congressmen have plants in their district which manufacture parts for those tanks (that the Army doesn't want)."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #28 April 29, 2013 The same Right Wing Conservatards who forced through this bill are the exact same ones who refuse to vote for any bill that promotes government spending to help kick-start the economy. The convince the ignorant masses that have limited information sources that porkulous for economic stimulous is terrible, while porkulous for military hardware is the greatest. I look forward to the comments from the right wing conservatards who post here. How do you explain this one? You can't... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #29 April 29, 2013 QuoteThe same Right Wing Conservatards who forced through this bill are the exact same ones who refuse to vote for any bill that promotes government spending to help kick-start the economy. The convince the ignorant masses that have limited information sources that porkulous for economic stimulous is terrible, while porkulous for military hardware is the greatest. I look forward to the comments from the right wing conservatards who post here. How do you explain this one? You can't... Yes we can. It seems you have a little amazon in you.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #30 April 29, 2013 Quoteconservatards, rescumlicans, blah blah blah QuoteSo it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. QuoteLawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams. Yeah, so, you were saying? Is a a reading comprehension issue, or a failure to read?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #31 April 29, 2013 QuoteQuoteI understand what you just said but my question is if they are going to go out and spend all this $$$ on something as needless as tanks why not invest that money in something the army could actually use instead. I watched a show on the history channel and it was about a place in alabama that rebuilds used Abrams tanks. Within a week or so they can completely rebuild it to looking like brand new. What suprises me is that obama isnt using this money on more drones. What you're missing is the fact that NOT spending for new tanks could cost jobs in Ohio at the factory that builds the tanks. The politicians won't let the federally funded factory close in their jurisdiction any more than they will let unnecessary military bases in their area close. It would cost some folks their jobs, hurting supprt area jobs, and it would piss off lots of "I want cuts but NIMBY". All of that adds up to a threat to their reelection campaign. Can't have that when we can just spend the plebes money, or put them more in debt. And yes, the people making drones are still getting theirs (just a little less). Boeing, GE, et al are not in any danger. It would cost less, to just pay the defense workers to produce nothing, much like paying farmers not to plant. We could shave 40% from defense budget or more. It's all smoke and mirrors over there when it comes to money. No one knows where it goes. They just reported the CIA has been giving Karzi In Afgan $130K per month in cash over the last 10 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #32 April 30, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe same Right Wing Conservatards who forced through this bill are the exact same ones who refuse to vote for any bill that promotes government spending to help kick-start the economy. The convince the ignorant masses that have limited information sources that porkulous for economic stimulous is terrible, while porkulous for military hardware is the greatest. I look forward to the comments from the right wing conservatards who post here. How do you explain this one? You can't... Yes we can. It seems you have a little amazon in you. No you can't. You didn't. You had a chance and did not add anything to bak up your assertion. You just typed bullshit about another person who has the intellectual prowess to think rationally, just like I do. People like us get REALLY pissed at the moron bastard shitheads who have zero knowledge of history, and repeat the talking points of the corporate owned media, much like mindless parrots. Come Right Wing Conservatards, where is the explanation as to how money spent for stimulous of the economy is NOT like money spent to stimulate the economy for the production of military hardware the military DOES NOT WANT!!!! Come on, tards, you can do it... NOT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #33 May 1, 2013 Wow, you sounds awful full of hate. You also haven't responded to my post. You are trying to make this R vs D. It isn't. It's about hating waste. I hated the trillion dollar porkulous, and I hate this. You seem to be ok with one but not the other. Sounds like hypocrisy to me. I posted this before your last response, and never heard from you. Anything to say? QuoteQuoteconservatards, rescumlicans, blah blah blah ***So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. QuoteLawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams. Yeah, so, you were saying? Is a a reading comprehension issue, or a failure to read?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
