Another thing that frightens me about America

[D. Scarlatti]

That these guys are apparently quite serious.

I laughed out loud here in France when I saw the title of your posting, 'Young Cons', because here in French "con" means an idiot or an asshole. I quickly realized that was not what you intended, then I watched the video and saw these white guys trying to rap about their (mostly white) issues...and I realized the title was perfectly apt.

[D. Scarlatti]

Incidentally, where did this idea that Democrats are "weak on defense" come from? It's complete bullshit.

"Marginally less belligerent than Republicans" does not equal weak on defense.

[Qingdai]

"...real conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., and arguably Jesus are the flag-bearers of the true conservative movement."

Huh? That's a very weird set. Why exactly do they thing King Jr. was shot? His "conservative" viewpoints?

Oh I see they reference the Heritage Foundation and Freepers, no wonder they're confused.

[Waluigi]

The Democrats being weak on defense is proof by repeated assertion. The Republicans have been campaigning on that point for so long, it's just accepted as truth. So now, every Democrat is forced to answer on why they're NOT weak on defense.

[MonCapitan2002]

Repeat something often enough and people will believe. There has got to be a way to make that assertion bite the Repugnantans in the ass.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

"...real conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., and arguably Jesus are the flag-bearers of the true conservative movement."

Huh? That's a very weird set. Why exactly do they thing King Jr. was shot? His "conservative" viewpoints?

They're referencing his well-known conservative views on the Vietnam War, of course.

[Watser?]

You gotta laugh at the party of freedom telling people they can't marry, they can't have an abortion, they can't smoke marijuana, they can't be/visit a prostitute etc.

All things our socialist dictatorship here will let you get away with.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Waluigi

The Democrats being weak on defense is proof by repeated assertion.

There may be not much of a difference in terms of rhetoric or willingness to drop bombs on people, but the level of fiscal commitment to the military budget (not so much the operational, but the procurment/development side) does seem to show a definite trend since the 1970s at least that the military tends to be better off under Republican financial control.

Defence as a percent of discretionary spending.


NTM

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Huh? That's a very weird set. Why exactly do they thing King Jr. was shot? His "conservative" viewpoints?

It's Wingnut Gospel that King dreaming of a day in which his children would "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" was a resounding condemnation of affirmative action. 4 reelsz.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Watser?

You gotta laugh at the party of freedom telling people they can't marry, they can't have an abortion, they can't smoke marijuana, they can't be/visit a prostitute etc.

All things our socialist dictatorship here will let you get away with.

Can I move to your country?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

There may be not much of a difference in terms of rhetoric or willingness to drop bombs on people, but the level of fiscal commitment to the military budget (not so much the operational, but the procurment/development side) does seem to show a definite trend since the 1970s at least that the military contractors tends to be better off under Republican financial control.

[California Tanker]

Can I move to your country?

They won't let me keep a firearm for self defence in Holland, by and large. I consider the freedom to decide if I want to take measures to ensure I and mine live to be a tad more important than smoking weed.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...lies/fixed.gif

As a user, I don't much care who gets rich over the production and procurement of my equipment. I just care that I have good, modern equipment.

NTM

[Dingfod]

That's funny, your graph shows the percentage on it's lowest ebb when Republicans were in charge of the purse strings in the 90s (1994 on).

[erimir]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

There may be not much of a difference in terms of rhetoric or willingness to drop bombs on people, but the level of fiscal commitment to the military budget (not so much the operational, but the procurment/development side) does seem to show a definite trend since the 1970s at least that the military tends to be better off under Republican financial control.

If you equate "the military being better off" with "spending more money on things that could be classed as military spending" then sure.

I would take issue with that characterization, however.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

They won't let me keep a firearm for self defence in Holland, by and large. I consider the freedom to decide if I want to take measures to ensure I and mine live to be a tad more important than smoking weed.

Nevermind how likely you are to need that protection in each country, or how likely you are to be murdered, etc.

I guess. In my case, I'd rather live in a safer place without a gun, than a more dangerous one with one - actually be safer rather than having the freedom to take measures to make myself feel safer.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

They won't let me keep a firearm for self defence in Holland, by and large. I consider the freedom to decide if I want to take measures to ensure I and mine live to be a tad more important than smoking weed.

That's another thing I like, freedom from nuts with guns.

It's spelled The Netherlands, btw

Originally Posted by erimir

Nevermind how likely you are to need that protection in each country, or how likely you are to be murdered, etc.

I guess. In my case, I'd rather live in a safer place without a gun, than a more dangerous one with one - actually be safer rather than having the freedom to take measures to make myself feel safer.

When your country floods regularly like ours used to, you can build your home on a little artificial hill like out ancestors used to do or you can all pitch in together and build a dike (which will also protect your fields and the roads).

[Qingdai]

I don't know about the usefulness of guns to protect your family, when you can't marry the person you want, you either can't afford to have children (due to lack of maternity leave and inadequate health insurance) or are forced to have children you don't want due to birth control choices being limited.
Kind of like barring the door after the horses have already left the barn.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I consider the freedom to decide if I want to take measures to ensure I and mine live to be a tad more important than...

anything. And they're cool toys, too!

As a user, I don't much care who gets rich over the production and procurement of my equipment. I just care that I have good, modern equipment.

The M1 Abrams tank was ordered under the Carter administration. Whereas, that spending bulge under Reagan -- have you enjoyed the use you've made of the MX missile system? Which is to say: more spending does not necessarily mean better tools for individual soldiers -- as opposed to, say, a slightly more widely open cheque-book for corporate cost overruns and boondoggles.

[The Lone Ranger]

That's one of the things that always amazes me. Carter (who actually served in the U.S. military) made a concerted effort to modernize the U.S. armed forces and to ensure that they had good, modern equipment, while making a serious effort to eliminate wasteful and redundant programs. Reagan (who spent WWII in Hollywood pretending to be in the military) spent huge amounts of money on programs that even the military thought were wastes of money.

Yet it's Reagan who gets the credit for being so good for/to the U.S. military?


Cheers,

Michael

[MonCapitan2002]

Well, when it comes to defense, the Repugnantans do have a better propaganda program.

[California Tanker]

Argh! The computer ate my reply.

Redux, Short version:

The M1 Abrams tank was ordered under the Carter administration.

Chrysler won the XM1 competition in November 1976, beating the General Motors entry. All the Big Five programs were started and winning prototypes from the manufacturers selected before Carter came into office (Apache, Black Hawk, Patriot, Abrams and Bradley). Bradley had its funding deleted from the Administration's 1979 budget proposal (re-instated by Congress), and the cost-cutting involved in the Abrams project resulted in the tank being 'fitted for, but not with' certain equipment, not least the proper-sized cannon. It entered service with the 20-year-old 105mm in an era when other countries were building 120mm and 125mm, despite the requirement for 120mm being identified in 1976 and the gun being the tank's entire purpose of being. Though in hindsight it worked out not to be a problem, post cold-war testing of Soviet era tanks indicated that the 105mm was not sufficient to reliably engage the opposition. The 120mm cannon and extra armour were incorportated as part of the Reagan era expenditures in the mid 1980s. Had the tank actually had to fight in Germany in the early 1980s as it was purchased to do, it would have proven inadequate.

Whereas, that spending bulge under Reagan -- have you enjoyed the use you've made of the MX missile system?

$20bn, and 114 missiles entered service. On the other hand, the Clinton years saw the $1.3bn M8 Buford (started Reagan era) cancelled after it had been selected by the Army and was ready for production, and instead saw the $13bn Crusader project stood up. The wisdom of that choice can be shown by the fact that Crusader was cancelled by Bush Jr, and the 82nd Airborne requested that the five M8s prototypes which had been produced be pulled out of the museum and sent to Afghanistan.

On the other hand, other projects initiated in the Reagan era, such as HMMWV, SINCGARS, HEMMTT and Javelin have proven resounding successes, SINCGARS and Javelin being two which are notable for being bleeding-edge technology with associated high costs. Indeed, from the sidearm on my hip (program started 1983, selected 1986) to the ACH on my head (selected 2002under RFI, thus bypassing the usual development/procurement process), outside of the Blue Force Tracker/FBCB2 I can't offhand think of any equipment I am using which has its origins in a Democratic administration.

Rapid Fielding Initiative (a 2003 invention) is one of the best things to happen to the Army's procurement system. Instead of going through the long-winded and expensive bureaucracy, it goes straight to private enterprise and buys the things off the shelf. Some excellent gear.

FWIW, Reagan was an enlisted cavalryman before WWII. He went to OCS, commissioned as a cavalry officer, and transferred to the audio/visual side in 1942.

That's funny, your graph shows the percentage on it's lowest ebb when Republicans were in charge of the purse strings in the 90s (1994 on).

There wasn't as much to spend it on any more. After the cold war ended, Bush 1 set out a draw-down plan to reduce the size of the military to something a little less expensive, but still capable. Clinton downsized it even more.

NTM

[Dingfod]

Congress controls spending, not the Executive branch.

[Rocky]

Originally Posted by MonCapitan2002

Repeat something often enough and people will believe.

This is true. Kind of like the mantra Democrats are for the poor and Republicans only care about the rich.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Congress controls spending, not the Executive branch.

CSA and SOD make the recommendations for the programs. Indeed, Congress signs the cheques, but as has been noted occasionally in recent years, the theory of the level of discretionary control vs the actual is disappointing.

NTM

[Dingfod]

I know, but I like to live in my constitutional fantasy world.

[Deadlokd]

When the level of military spending is still higher than the next eight (? off the top of my head but fairly sure I'm not wrong) countries combined, then you really can't complain about cuts in military contractor spending. Or you could, but you'd look a little silly.