I'm just clarifying why I think my local issue is different.
Everyone's local issue is always different.
We're all PRECIOUS LITTLE SNOWFLAKES!
When we start responding like this to each other, it's time to shut the discussion down....
Of course you're not going to respond to my reasoning for why I think this issue is different (you know, considering the cost of reopening and also the fact that this is the only plant in the country). It's more fun just to make me look silly.
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”
Romney:
"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal."
Yeah, those positions are so different it's scary.
Romney flip flopped on gun control though. That quote is from 2004. So if we're weighing the risks, Romney is less likely to enact more gun control than Obama.
But, FWIW, we already HAD the assault weapons ban, and the world didn't end. We know the result of that.
AW - Your local issue ISNT different though - a lot of budget cuts in other areas might not make long-term economic sense (education would probably be a good example but I'm too lazy to pull stats right now) either.
Its a very NIMBY attitude. Of course I'm the exact same way- we ALL are - but its hard to accept that you can cut the budget anywhere BUT the military.
Cuts need to be made, across the board, and its going to hurt a lot of people short-term. But without some major reductions in spending, the long-term impact will be far worse.
Seriously. I was half joking when I made my comment about tanks earlier. But why don't we believe the Army knows what it is doing. There is a lot of evidence that the heyday of the tank is behind us. And apparently we have plenty of tanks for now. Should we keep producing suboptimal equipment that that is vulnerable to attack in our current operations? Even when the army has indicated they don't want to? If so, why?
Because if we let everyone drive cars the saddle makers will go out of business.
In all seriousness I have no idea if there's a valid reasoning behind not producing tanks, like them being obsolete, or if it's all political.
Honestly, the same could be said of teachers, EPA workers, Welfare workers or any government employees that would be cut as a result of budget cuts. People always say they're for budget cuts, and that sacrifice is necessary so as not to burden our grandchildren with this debt - until the sacrifice and the cuts hit too close to home.
I'll agree to an extent, but I think the different between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is the cost of retraining. Sure, when teachers lose their jobs, it can cost the government money while the person is on unemployment. But it isn't going to cost the government more money when and if they decide to rehire new teachers to replace them. There are always teachers out there looking for jobs.
But when you're looking at something like the technology involved with a tank, the cost of rehiring, training, and reopening a new facility is astronomical. This is what I'm talking about. The decision in my particular community just doesn't make good economic sense.
I realize we're talking about budget cuts in general. I'm just clarifying why I think my local issue is different.
I'm removed so not emotionally attached to your community and I think the military should cut spending in times between wars and that a lot of what they used to do in-house can be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector. And as Caden said...budgets are full of pork for all sorts of different areas/funding at the state level, so keeping your 1100 jobs in Lima might mean another community losing their jobs or your same community not getting the same amount of federal funding for your local health department and therefore not vaccinating as many young kids. We can't predict any of that, but there are consequences to long-term spending over emotion more than need. Bottom line, that tank facility isn't needed in the short-term and how much it will be needed later is still under debate by the Army and the contractor.
As for a sudden war where we need tons of new tanks - call those automakers the feds bailed out and see if they'll hire some of the top notch guys from your area to get a few tanks out before the start-up of the plant or just use different vehicles. If/when congress decides to suddenly go to war, I bet that private company running the tank facility now will be one of the first on capital hill to be trying to get their $$ into a budget.
AW, maybe this viewpoint of military spending/budget cuts is worse for your community than how the presidential candidates feel about guns. I think you might have found something that you can research and get behind for voting instead of just voting for the lesser of evils.
Too bad Obama just put all the BRAC closures on hold during an 8/8/12 interview and the Pentegon followed suit...now I think Romney and Obama feel the same on closures similar to the one in your community.
Seriously. I was half joking when I made my comment about tanks earlier. But why don't we believe the Army knows what it is doing. There is a lot of evidence that the heyday of the tank is behind us. And apparently we have plenty of tanks for now. Should we keep producing suboptimal equipment that that is vulnerable to attack in our current operations? Even when the army has indicated they don't want to? If so, why?
Because if we let everyone drive cars the saddle makers will go out of business.
In all seriousness I have no idea if there's a valid reasoning behind not producing tanks, like them being obsolete, or if it's all political.
I'm in the same boat as you, caden. This is a decision that's up to Congress and the Army. Maybe it's the wrong one. And maybe Obama has a hand in making that wrong decision. It was the ZOMG OBAMA'S MILITARY BUDGET that had me rolling my eyes.
Seriously. I was half joking when I made my comment about tanks earlier. But why don't we believe the Army knows what it is doing. There is a lot of evidence that the heyday of the tank is behind us. And apparently we have plenty of tanks for now. Should we keep producing suboptimal equipment that that is vulnerable to attack in our current operations? Even when the army has indicated they don't want to? If so, why?
The government still plans to use tanks. I don't know where anyone is saying the day of the tanks is behind us. There are new prototypes of the Abrams that they are planning to have combat-ready by 2018.
Tanks have their purposes. And as long as we have infantry, we need them. The goal should be to improve technology so that they are no longer vulnerable. The problem now is that for the four years that the tank plant is shut down, our tanks will not be receiving the most up-to-date technology.
What's the alternative to tanks in an urban environment? Helicopters can't get that low, right? Tanks are what we have.
Why the hell would the idea of a smaller military scare you? Do you have any idea how much money literally vanishes each year into the defense budget? How can anyone not think something that equals half our annual budget when we are trillions in debt needs to be downsized or streamlined?
fwiw you are always going to have calls for gun control in the wake of any shooting - columbine, vtech, etc., reguardless of any political agenda at the time
This is true with the exception of the 'hood. I don't see anyone running around talking about gun control when kids get shot up because they were sleeping on the couch and some fool opened fired in the neighborhood.
Or maybe gun control in the black community is just The War on Gangs.
At any rate, ya'll carry on. *throws up two \_/ and walks on out*
fwiw you are always going to have calls for gun control in the wake of any shooting - columbine, vtech, etc., reguardless of any political agenda at the time
This is true with the exception of the 'hood. I don't see anyone running around talking about gun control when kids get shot up because they were sleeping on the couch and some fool opened fired in the neighborhood.
Or maybe gun control in the black community is just The War on Gangs.
At any rate, ya'll carry on. *throws up two \_/ and walks on out*
come to NY. it's all the rage lately. a couple of kids were shot and killed this summer and bloomberg is all over it. the guy annoys the shit out of me but i'll give him his due on this one.
and seriously, this entire debate is time-sucking bullshit. gabby giffords was almost killed and NOTHING happened. A MEMBER OF CONGRESS WAS SHOT IN THE FREAKING HEAD a year and half ago AND NOT ONE FEDERAL LAW has been passed. so seriously, take your OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE AWAY MY GUN RIGHTS paranoia back to your basement.
LP - is this part of Stop and Fisk? There was a segment on Totally Biased about this last night.
no. he's really high on the "control gun-running through VA" thing. it burns his butt that our laws are more strict than other areas of the country where you can basically get a gun in the time it takes to get a blow-job (IMO, understandably). it seems like every time they find a gun that was used in a high-profile homicide they trace it back to a gun show or a craigslist ad, where no backround check is required.
LP - is this part of Stop and Fisk? There was a segment on Totally Biased about this last night.
no. he's really high on the "control gun-running through VA" thing. it burns his butt that our laws are more strict than other areas of the country where you can basically get a gun in the time it takes to get a blow-job (IMO, understandably). it seems like every time they find a gun that was used in a high-profile homicide they trace it back to a gun show or a craigslist ad, where no backround check is required.
Every time I see him on tv pushing gun control, I wonder, will he get kicked out of the GOP?
FYI if you want your second amendment rights to really mean something, you should want the government to drastically cut back DoD spending. A rag tag militia of the paranoid, armed with nothing more than unregistered Uzis, is going to have a snowball's chance in hell in defending America from its own tyrannical government with the war chest like what our military industrial complex has accumulated over the last few decades. HTH!
fwiw you are always going to have calls for gun control in the wake of any shooting - columbine, vtech, etc., reguardless of any political agenda at the time
This is true with the exception of the 'hood. I don't see anyone running around talking about gun control when kids get shot up because they were sleeping on the couch and some fool opened fired in the neighborhood.
Or maybe gun control in the black community is just The War on Gangs.
At any rate, ya'll carry on. *throws up two \_/ and walks on out*
Right? The last time a shooting in my city made the news (outside of the local blog - thank FSM for Cal's journalism department) it was a kid. That seems to be the only time it's on tv. Shootings are so common in some areas CalTrans doesn't wear orange when working at night b/c it makes them a target and there are buses that get police escort through certain areas, particularly at night. Though I hear that a lot of the drivers just skip those areas entirely at night. Which would blow if you lived out there and worked a night job, but I can't hardly blame the drivers.
Working for a government contractor has very much colored my opinions on government, particularly defense spending. I have become 1000x more conservative about this, believe it or not.
If my experiences are typical (and I have reason to think that they are), you could probably cut military spending by half and apart from unemploying tons of people, it would have minimal effect on the actual effectiveness of our nation's defense.
Post by UMaineTeach on Aug 17, 2012 16:38:06 GMT -5
Make sure to just recycle that scare tactic crap from the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation that floods your mailbox just for being a member. H is a member b/c it's required for his gun club to have liability insurance through NRA and I can't keep up with the dang junk mail it generates.
Also, I heard this quote on NPR/MPBN Radio this afternoon on Down Memory Lane "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." - Mae West.
Spend one day on the other side hearing the crazy paranoia that comes from Glenn Beck and Limbaugh, then finding out they have millions and millions of listeners and followers and THEN tell me you're afraid of what the other side might do.
No shade though, aw, I always appreciate your honesty. I am pretty anti-gun but I don't live there and am safely situated in Communist Europe. Airfares are too high for me to come get your gun.
As far as the military, here's my thing. Cons talk all the time about cutting programs because of wasteful spending and bad accounting practices. There were/are billions of dollars just missing from both wars. Just missing, unaccounted for. And Iraq cost a ridiczillion dollars and the D's didn't push that one (yeah they voted yes, because they are hopeless pvssies). Way more waste there then with Welfare Wilona eating skittles. Why not even look at it and see where we can spend better?
Why not even look at it and see where we can spend better?
That's something I don't understand about DOD spending. Every other department gets hammered for "accountability" but I don't often hear of anyone looking at streamlining and trimming fat in the military.
fwiw you are always going to have calls for gun control in the wake of any shooting - columbine, vtech, etc., reguardless of any political agenda at the time
This is true with the exception of the 'hood. I don't see anyone running around talking about gun control when kids get shot up because they were sleeping on the couch and some fool opened fired in the neighborhood.
Or maybe gun control in the black community is just The War on Gangs.
At any rate, ya'll carry on. *throws up two \_/ and walks on out*
FWIW, there have been a few kids recently killed from stray bullets in North Minneapolis (aka the 'hood) - including one where a 5 year old was killed while napping on a couch - and people have been pretty vocal about it.
That's something I don't understand about DOD spending. Every other department gets hammered for "accountability" but I don't often hear of anyone looking at streamlining and trimming fat in the military.
Because people would react like AW, like the military is some hypothetical Snuggie made out of guns and camo that makes them feel comfortable and warm and safe from all of the terrorists that, without us spending billions upon billions upon billions of dollars, would surely flood our shores in a wave unseen since the British came. Or some shit.