Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/10/24 02:28:35
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Jihadin wrote: Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?
Less per 4 years than any previous president.
He signed something like 120 EO...
Which I find funny but as Senator, he campaigned against using EOs...
But he signed less than previous presidents (at least back until Reagan) per term, which is funny considering that people love to paint him as the "EO President".
Huh... really?
I thought that was Bush's title...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/24 02:53:02
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Jihadin wrote: Obamacare/ACA that was rammed through both senate and house that was democratic control did pissed quite a few people off.
You are repeating a lie. "Ramming it through" is such a preposterous mischaracterization that it's deeply sad that real and honest people, rather than just dishonest politicians, are still repeating it in any sense other than to point out how dishonest politics can be.
They spent a YEAR on it. A year of courting Republican votes and working from a perspective of "we MUST do this in a bipartisan way". We elected the candidate who told us repeatedly (and won the debates doing it) that he would try to give us a public option. The Dems immediately abandoned that concept as a big gesture of bipartisanship, and adopted a Republican-created plan instead. The exact same kind of plan that a Republican executive had passed with a Democratic-controlled legislative body (Romney and the MA House). \
The Republican party in 2009 immediately decided that beating Obama and foiling his agenda (the agenda he publicly promised and the majority of Americans voted for) was far higher priority than fixing our broken healthcare system. They didn't give a damn that it was all Republican-based ideas. They didn't give a damn that the public option had been taken off the table specifically as a BIG step across the aisle to them. They wanted political advantage, and they made up lies about death panels, and scared seniors into screaming at town halls. They're still lying. Romney's got the gall to criticize Obama for allegedly cutting $716B from the Medicare budget, when in fact those EXACT cost-saving measures were and are part of the Ryan budget as well.
Obama and the Dems spent a year trying to reach across the aisle and getting slapped for it. If they HAD rammed it through, we could have had a healthcare bill in Spring of 2009. Not Spring of 2010.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Manchu wrote: Meanwhile, how does anyone think Mitt Romney will really be able to work with Democrats? I mean, the onus has been on Democrats to work with Republicans for the last four years, with Republicans constantly moving the goal posts on what they're willing to talk about. Now Romney says he will reach out to Democrats because he was able to do so in Massachusetts? I don't think so, Mitt. This whole election has been a complete repudiation of those days. Choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate is a very clear signal that Romney has zero plans to work with Democrats in anything but the our-war-or-the-highway approach of Ryan and the rest of the Tea Party.
I have no clue, because I have absolutely no idea what Romney plans on doing once he reaches the White House.
For all I know he could be a do nothing moderate, who focuses on matters of basic governance while watching the economy move through its predicted steady recovery. Or he could be a hardline trickle down economic reformer. I mean he's said plenty of stuff that indicate either, depending on who he was trying to appeal to at the time.
Romney really is the mystery box of this election. Do you take Obama, or do you take what's in the Romney mystery box.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/24 03:37:14
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Jihadin wrote: Obamacare/ACA that was rammed through both senate and house that was democratic control did pissed quite a few people off.
You are repeating a lie. "Ramming it through" is such a preposterous mischaracterization that it's deeply sad that real and honest people, rather than just dishonest politicians, are still repeating it in any sense other than to point out how dishonest politics can be.
They spent a YEAR on it. A year of courting Republican votes and working from a perspective of "we MUST do this in a bipartisan way". We elected the candidate who told us repeatedly (and won the debates doing it) that he would try to give us a public option. The Dems immediately abandoned that concept as a big gesture of bipartisanship, and adopted a Republican-created plan instead. The exact same kind of plan that a Republican executive had passed with a Democratic-controlled legislative body (Romney and the MA House). \
The Republican party in 2009 immediately decided that beating Obama and foiling his agenda (the agenda he publicly promised and the majority of Americans voted for) was far higher priority than fixing our broken healthcare system. They didn't give a damn that it was all Republican-based ideas. They didn't give a damn that the public option had been taken off the table specifically as a BIG step across the aisle to them. They wanted political advantage, and they made up lies about death panels, and scared seniors into screaming at town halls. They're still lying. Romney's got the gall to criticize Obama for allegedly cutting $716B from the Medicare budget, when in fact those EXACT cost-saving measures were and are part of the Ryan budget as well.
Obama and the Dems spent a year trying to reach across the aisle and getting slapped for it. If they HAD rammed it through, we could have had a healthcare bill in Spring of 2009. Not Spring of 2010.
Ragnar... I disagree with this:
Obama and the Dems spent a year trying to reach across the aisle and getting slapped for it. If they HAD rammed it through, we could have had a healthcare bill in Spring of 2009. Not Spring of 2010.
There was not a "true" attempt to make this bipartisan... in fact, they didn't need to as they had carte blanche.
And this is just wrong:
Romney's got the gall to criticize Obama for allegedly cutting $716B from the Medicare budget, when in fact those EXACT cost-saving measures were and are part of the Ryan budget as well.
Ryan's plan is NOT Romney's plan...
But, if you want to bring in Wyden-Ryan plan, that Medicare cut is the same, but the mechanism to achieve those cuts are drastically different.
ACA bill achieves that via a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (aka... da deth panel ), to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program.
The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
But, again... we're not facing Ryan's plan.... a cursory look at Mitt's Medicare plan is:
- Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement
-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
-All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today
-If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
-“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
-Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support
-Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors
And people say he doesn't 'have a plan'...
So... if you want to talk about the current law... the ACA bill is gak. It was touted as the solution to ensure coverage for everyone AND to reduce cost. I've been reading up on the bill itself (and its a beast) and there are only two things I really like:
1) Can't be denied due to pre-existing condition
2) Insurances cant use a "lifetime cap" anymore
Here's the are the crappy things s that are in this bill, spoiler'ed due to wall-o-text:
Spoiler:
OBAMACARE FACT #1: BREASTFEEDING: All employers must now provide a “reasonable break time” and a “private place other than a bathroom” for employees to express breast milk for at least one year after childbirth. Employers with fewer than 50 employees “may” be exempt if they can demonstrate compliance would result in an “undue hardship.” [Section 4207, Affordable Care Act].
Other than a bathroom? So a special breast feeding lounge or something? I have absolutely nothing against breast feeding (quite the contrary), but this is a regulation that the federal government needed to impose on business owners in this economy? Really?
In addition,in defining the “essential health benefits package” that all health insurance policies must offer (under section 1302 of the Act), the Department of Health & Human Services has issued regulations requiring free coverage of breastfeeding supplies and counseling.
OBAMACARE FACT #2: TRAINING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR “DIVERSITY”: There is BIG money in Obamacare for all things relating to “diversity,” which is crudely defined as “individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.” For example, section 5402–titled “Health Care Professionals Training for Diversity”– appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to provide and expand scholarships and pay back student loans. Specifically, 5402 provides:
(1) An additional $25 million for paying back the student loans of “disadvantaged background” students– up to $30,000 per year– if they become faculty at a health profession school (nursing; medical schools; PA schools, etc.). The Secretary of HHS may also make grants/enter into contracts with such health profession schools to help subsidize the salaries of hiring such “disadvantaged background” students as faculty.
(2) About $250 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students attending health profession schools ($51 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
(3) About $300 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students who attend health profession schools and then agree to provide service in an “unserved or underserved population” area after graduation ($60 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
The grand total for these 3 items alone = $ 575 million over a 5 year period. Breathtaking boondoggle.
OBAMACARE FACT #3: Under section 4203 of the Affordable Care Act, all medical diagnostic equipment used by physicians, hospitals and other health care providers–e.g., ex-rays, exam tables, exam chairs, mammography equipment, MRIs, etc.– must be equipment that is “accessible to, and usable by, individuals with accessibility needs, and shall allow independent entry to, use of, and exit from the equipment by such individuals to the maximum extent possible.”
While I think we can all agree that this is a nice goal, is it really appropriate to mandate this, in this economy, regardless of its cost? Price tag: Unknown.
OBAMACARE FACT #4: $1.25 billion– yes, that’s “billion” with a “b”– for “centers of excellence for depression.“ [section 10410 of the Affordable Care Act] These centers will engage in research and treatment of depression.
Wow– really? $1.25 BILLION to universities and other entities to do something–treat and conduct research on depression–that they already have every incentive in the world to do? Indeed, there’s already a National Network of Depression Centers (NNDC)–consisting of 21 large institutions–that has functionally being doing this type of work since 2007.
What a boondoggle. Makes me depressed. Think I can get a grant?
Good to know my tax dollars aren’t being squandered in these tough economic times.
OBAMACARE FACT #5: Section 8002 of Obamacare created the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services & Supports) Program. CLASS was supposed to be a government-sponsored, voluntary long-term care insurance program funded via payroll deductions (with subsidies for low-income enrollees). Enrollees were required to pay into the CLASS insurance for 5 years– a “vesting” period– before they could draw any benefits.
Because of its long vesting period (during which time premiums were collected but benefits not paid out), CLASS was scored as “saving” taxpayers $80 billion– which was more than half of Obamacare’s supposed $143 billion in budgetary “savings.”
Guess what? In October 2011, the Obama Administration admitted what most smart folks had known all along: That the CLASS program was fiscally unsustainable and unworkable. Only sick people with expensive long-term care needs wanted to enroll and pay its hefty premiums. HHS Secretary Sebelius admitted, ““Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.”
Epic fail.
So... for something that was touted to fundamentally change our Healthcare in order to ensure access to insurances and to reduce cost... it's already an epic failure.
Recently, a survey was done that shown 1 in 10 businesses will drop their company's health insurance benefits and pay the tax because it incenticize employers to reduce their labor cost. There are economist and businesses are saying that's the best case scenario and it may be upwards to 30%. Especially in this economy, businesses WILL continue to reduce cost, even if it means they'll drop their emplorer provided benefit package. Out of anything else I posted... this point I believe is what resonated with those who objects the current Healthcare law.
Off my soapbox now...
Ready to take my lickings now
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/24 03:38:32
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
During the 2008 US presidential election, then candidate Barack Obama (US Senator, D-IL) campaigned for the need to reform the American health care system, stating that the cost of health care was a "threat to our economy" and that health care should be a "right for every American." After assuming office in Nov. 2008, President Obama urged Congress to pass health care reform in weekly addresses, speeches, a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress on Sep. 9, 2009, and his State of the Union addresses in 2009 and 2010.
Republican and Democrat congressional representatives introduced 133 health care and related bills during the 111th session of Congress (Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2009). Many Democrats supported measures such as the public option and individual mandate, while many Republicans opposed increasing government spending and control on health care. On Nov. 7, 2009 the House Democrats garnered a vote of 220-215 to approve the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962). Only one Republican, Anh Cao (R-LA), voted for the bill, and 39 Democrats voted against it. The bill was estimated to cost $1.1 trillion, provide coverage for 36 million uninsured Americans, and create a government health insurance program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $118 billion over 2010-2019.
On Dec. 24, 2009 the Senate approved similar health care reform legislation called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590), in a 60-39 party-line vote. HR 3590 began as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, a bill passed by the House on Oct. 8 that modified the homebuyers credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. In a procedural move, the Senate co-opted HR 3590, removed all existing language, and replaced it with the language of their health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. No Republican Senator voted for the bill. Some Republicans argued that the bill was unconstitutional, socialistic, too costly, and would increase health insurance costs for those who are already insured. This bill was estimated to cost $871 billion over 10 years, would require most Americans to have health insurance, and would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans. The CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 2010-2019.
Negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate bills stalled in Congress after Scott Brown (R-MA) won late Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) vacant Senate seat in Jan. 2010, causing Senate Democrats to lose their Republican filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. On Feb. 22, 2010 President Obama unveiled his own proposal bridging the Senate and House health care bills, placing pressure on the House to pass health care reform legislation. House Democrats advanced the their amendments to HR 3590 as a new budget reconciliation bill, which is a form of legislation that requires only a simple majority and not a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate to be approved.
Democrat congressional representatives walk into Capitol Hill to vote on health care reform bill HR 3590.
Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, www.nytimes.com, Mar. 1, 2010
On Mar. 21, 2010 the House approved the Senate's bill (HR 3590) in a 219-212 vote and passed the House's amendments to HR 3590 as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HR 4872) in a 220-211 vote. The Reconciliation Act made financing and revenue changes to HR 3590, while modifying higher education assistance financing. No Republican in the House voted for either HR 3590 or the reconciliation bill.
President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) (2.2 MB) into law on Mar. 23, 2010. This law was the main piece of legislation reforming the US health care system. The 906 page act was touted to increase health care coverage to include 32 million previously uninsured Americans. Under the new law, 95% of Americans will be insured, according to the White House website's "Putting Americans in Control of Their Health Care" page (accessed Mar. 29, 2010).
President Obama issued Executive Order 13535 (90 KB) on Mar. 24, 2010, to ensure that federal funds would not be used for abortion services, consistent with the Hyde Amendment (1.3 MB) , as he had promised anti-abortion Democrats.
On Mar. 25, 2010 the Senate approved the Reconciliation Act with amendments in a 56-43 vote, and the House approved the Senate's amended version of the act in a 220-207 vote. The Reconciliation Act (HR 4872) (283 KB) was signed into law by President Obama on Mar. 30, 2010 to make health-related financing and revenue changes to HR 3590 and to modify higher education assistance provisions.The CBO estimated that HR 3590 with the Reconciliation Act would reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over 2010-2019, provide coverage for 32 million previously uninsured Americans, and require more Americans to have health insurance. The CBO's deficit reduction calculation has been disputed; some independent calcuations conclude the bills would raise the deficit by over $500 billion over the next 10 years.
The Patient's Bill of Rights (181 KB) , a summary of regulations issued by the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and Treasury, to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was released by the White House on June 22, 2010.
On Jan. 5, 2011 the new Republican-majority US House of Representatives introduced The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (HR 2) (144 KB) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. On Jan. 19, 2011, the US House of Representatives passed the bill in a 245-189 vote. On Feb. 2, 2011, in a 51-47 party-line vote, the US Senate rejected The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/24 03:46:03
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Why and what was the reason the republicans would not work for the democrats.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/24 05:10:40
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
whembly wrote: There was not a "true" attempt to make this bipartisan... in fact, they didn't need to as they had carte blanche.
"They didn't need to" is not the same thing as "they didn't try". For instance, for the invasion of Iraq Bush didn't need the support of any allies, as the US military was more than capable of undertaking the attack by itself. But you'd be a nut to pretend there wasn't a lot of effort made to bring in other countries, with wildly varying levels of success.
There was a large number of outreaches made, at first to the Republicans as a whole, then to specific more moderate Republicans, and finally again to those more moderate Republicans as a possible way of stepping around the Blue Dogs that were threatening to stop the process.
But, if you want to bring in Wyden-Ryan plan, that Medicare cut is the same, but the mechanism to achieve those cuts are drastically different.
No, the $700 billion medicare cut is related to specific cost savings initiatives. You go on to describe the general mechanisms of each bill, not the specific cost savings measures that plan to make $700 billion in savings.
The $700 billion figure is actually about one third no longer overpaying on Medicare advantage, one third reduced hospital payments (which the hospitals have agreed to, knowing the large decrease in paying customer due to ACA's insurance coverage expansion will more than make up the shortfall), and one third for a bunch of minor changes, like no longer needing as much funding for hospitals who see more uninsured patients.
Every single one of those policies is kept within Ryan's budget. Every one.
The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
And given medicare advantage presently pays out premiums at about 117% of what it'd cost to directly provide coverage... then a scheme that thinks it'll solve healthcare with an expanded medicare advantage model is just nutty.
-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
Vouchers! Because Medicare Advantage isn't wasting enough money!
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/24 05:11:09
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
It would be impossible for such a plan to result in cost reduction without also reducing benefits. Impossible.
-If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
Which they will, because good luck finding a reasonable insurance policy that will be fully funded by Medicare outlays.
The biggest advantage of Medicare is that it isn't based on market pricing, and is therefore accessible to all regardless of age (beyond eligibility of course) or infirmity. Taking steps to render such care only according to something like...
-“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
...completely compromises the policy basis on which Medicare is founded. It will force people who would be considered liabilities by for-profit insurance companies to pay higher costs by way of the government plan, which will cost more because of an inability to exclude people. Sure, you can subsidize low-income seniors, but what about people that aren't low-income, can't qualify for a private plan, or afford the government plan?
Recently, a survey was done that shown 1 in 10 businesses will drop their company's health insurance benefits and pay the tax because it incenticize employers to reduce their labor cost. There are economist and businesses are saying that's the best case scenario and it may be upwards to 30%. Especially in this economy, businesses WILL continue to reduce cost, even if it means they'll drop their emplorer provided benefit package. Out of anything else I posted... this point I believe is what resonated with those who objects the current Healthcare law.
I object to ACA, but I also recognize that its basically the Republican friendly version of a single payer system.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/24 05:25:21
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/10/24 05:24:13
Subject: Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
The best part of the debate was hearing Ryan fluster the next day about the whole "bayonets and horses" deal, trying to make some vague and nebulous point about how "we have the least amount of ships since the first world war but the ocean isn't getting any smaller".
2012/10/24 05:24:33
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Jihadin wrote: Of course th Super Committe was a goat rope session. Either you (Ahtman or Dogma) posted their educational background and believe three of them actually had someting of an idea to them actually doing it. Rest was....fodder.
Senate Democrats
Patty Murray (Co-Chair)- Physical Education
Max Baucus- Economics and Law
John Kerry-Political Science and Law
Senate Republicans
Jon Kyl -"undergraduate degree" and Law
Rob Portman- Anthropology and Law
Pat Toomey- Government
House Democrats
Xavier Becerra- Economics and Law
Jim Clyburn- History
Chris Van Hollen- Philosphy and Public Policy
House Republicans
Jeb Hensarling (Co-Chair)-Economics and Law
Fred Upton-Journalism
Dave Camp- "Bachelor's degree" and Law
Yeah...a lotta law in there.
I wasted minutes of my life compiling that list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 05:25:29
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/24 07:15:24
Subject: Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
You all know the bayonet is still heavily used right? Wait....since "The Chosen One" said it went the way of the horses it must be true. You believers are funny. It still an issue item
President Obama made bayonets sound like buggy whips at Monday’s presidential debate, but the fact is they’re still standard issue for Marines.
The knives, which fit on the end of a rifle barrel and have been around since the 17th century, are not just there for when the ammo runs out and the enemy is close. According to the U.S. Army, the M9 bayonet serves as “a hand weapon, as a general field and utility knife, as well as a wire cutter together with its scabbard, and as a saw.”
Obama brought up bayonets by way of chiding Mitt Romney for calling proposed military cuts devastating.
"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916,” Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
“The bayonet is still very much a useful tool. That was kind of a dumb thing for him to say."
- Former U.S. Marine Doug Miller, of Hiawatha, Kan.
“The bayonet is still very much a useful tool," former U.S. Marine Doug Miller, of Hiawatha, Kan., told FoxNews.com. "That was kind of a dumb thing for him to say."
Miller, 64, a Vietnam veteran who served in the 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines Division, said the bayonet is indispensable for Marines in urban warfare, where they may have to go room to room in search of insurgents.
"You can't always swing the rifle into position, especially in close quarters," Miller said. "That bayonet could save your life."
The M9 bayonet and others in the series have been manufactured for the military by several companies, including Buck Knives and the Ontario Knife Co. The weapon attaches to the M16 rifle’s M4 carbine. It also can be used with the Mossberg 590 Special Purpose shotgun.
"Bottom line: The bayonet remains part of the individual Marine equipment issue and Marines are trained to use it," retired Maj. Gen. Ed Usher, president and CEO of the Marine Corps Association & Foundation, told FoxNews.com.
But Marines carry bayonets in the field, and all must complete training with the hand-to-hand combat staple. The Army’s infantrymen also have long used bayonets, though that branch has scaled back on bayonet drills in recent years. Although the last U.S. bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951, a British soldier was recently honored for leading a bayonet charge against the Taliban in 2011 in Afghanistan.
The official Marine.com website touts the bayonet with the words: “From 500 yards, every Marine is accurate with a rifle. Attach the OKC-3S Bayonet, and the weapon becomes just as effective in close combat situations. Also a Marine's multi-purpose fighting knife, the OKC-3S is the weapon of choice when shots can't be fired. Every Marine receives bayonet training in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) and on the Bayonet Assault Course in Recruit Training.”
Ontario Knife's version of the M9 bayonet, the OKC3S, is 13.25 inches long, with a serrated blade of hardened steel, a zinc phosphate non-reflective finish and an ergonomically grooved handle made of a low-noise polyester elastomer. It clicks onto the rifle via fitted internal stainless steel springs, and comes with a "Molle-compatible sheath designed for superior stealth."
“We take pride in our military products and it’s an honor and privilege to supply these weapons/tools to the US military,” said Ken Trbovich, president and CEO of Ontario Knife Co., told FoxNews.com in a statement. “The military deploys our products for a wide range of combat and field operations. These include, but are not limited to, breaching devices, rescue tools and combat weapons.”
The place of bayonets in history is assured. When all the bullets were fired, the deadly blades turned rifles into spears in the Civil War and World War I, when fighting rages from trench to trench at close range. Veterans also have been known to reminisce about using the versatile blade to toast bread, open cans, scrape mud off of boots and even dig latrines.
In the current edition of the Marine Corps Gazette, an article titled "‘Fix . . . Bayonets!’ Spanning the spectrum of lethality" by retired USMC Col. Michael Belcher praises the utility of bayonets throughout history and today.
"In counterinsurgency operations as in combat, the bayonet has proven itself to be an effective offensive and defensive weapon, one that produces kinetic and nonkinetic effects well beyond its size and across the spectrum of conflict," Belcher wrote.
The Chosen One is out of touch with the military
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/24 11:36:24
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
We've same amount of bayonets and the same amount of horses. Granted horse cavalry is no longer around and the only unit that uses horses are the Old Guard for military funeral.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/24 11:48:13
Subject: Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Kanluwen wrote: The best part of the debate was hearing Ryan fluster the next day about the whole "bayonets and horses" deal, trying to make some vague and nebulous point about how "we have the least amount of ships since the first world war but the ocean isn't getting any smaller".
I know I mentioned it, but that comment really turned me off, as an independent... I'm not looking for word games or who has the best "zinger" to make up my (at least still somewhat undecided) vote. I'm looking for sincerity... the snark was really not appreciated, by either candidate, but especially Obama in this last debate.
2012/10/24 12:02:38
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
We've same amount of bayonets and the same amount of horses. Granted horse cavalry is no longer around and the only unit that uses horses are the Old Guard for military funeral.
We have the same amount of horses that we had in WW2, WW1, Civil War?
We had over 4,000,000 soldiers in WW1, we have less than 2,000,000 soldiers now. Are we keeping 2,000,000+ bayonets in storage somewhere just in case every soldier needs a couple of spares?
2012/10/24 13:12:35
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Tibbsy wrote: The meaning I got from the comment was that there's a big difference between these:
And these:
Because you probably don't have many of the former, but you still use the latter. I think Obama was make the point that the former is no longer used.
EDIT: Fixed image
You must have missed the 1916 part, don't worry I'll help.
Let's also pretend D-USA tha he was referring to the actual number of horse and bayonets. He was attempting to imply these were absent or nearly absent or obsolete. While US troops don't seem particularly fond of the bayonet charge in the 21st century the Brits have no such aversion. Barry even made little hand motions so we would know what a plane looks like landing on these magical ships at sea. There's a pretty big difference between USS Langley and USS Ronald Reagan. Both aircraft carriers and submarines predate both candidates, to me it just made Barry look like a snide child. I don't expect Romney to fire back with a deep knowledge of the Navy, but Barry shouldn't pretend he is any better.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/24 13:25:36
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
d-usa wrote: They could have rammed through a bill with a public option in the first month.
Instead they worked with the Republicans, who didn't want to work with them.
That makes them non-bi-partisan?
And we wonder why our policital system is broken...
They could have, yes, but they wanted at least some Republicans on board with whatever legislation they wrote so that they'd have some political cover for doing something the majority of the American people, according to polling at the time, were strongly against.
2012/10/24 13:48:59
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
To those with the gall to actually post here that we still use horses and bayonets in the military. The point raised by the president was that we no longer need a vast fleet of warships, that aircraft and aircraft carriers changed the entire course of naval warfare in the second half of WW2 and that large fleets have not been relevant since.
Also, stop being pedants.
2012/10/24 14:33:58
Subject: Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
With all the beatings that Romney has taken for goofy things he's said I think Barack can spend a little time in the barrel.
Besides, if you look at some of our strategic rivals they're still building ships. It's not crazy to think that larger fleets could become relevant again.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2012/10/24 14:41:41
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Jihadin wrote:Why and what was the reason the republicans would not work for the democrats.
Jihadin wrote:You all know the bayonet is still heavily used right? Wait....since "The Chosen One" said it went the way of the horses it must be true. You believers are funny. It still an issue item
Monster Rain wrote: Besides, if you look at some of our strategic rivals they're still building ships. It's not crazy to think that larger fleets could become relevant again.
Of course it's crazy.
1) Even if we cut the navy in half we'd still have a bigger fleet than any plausible opponent, and there's no sign that any of those rivals are planning on duplicating our insanity of running up the debt to build a navy capable of taking on the entire rest of the world simultaneously.
2) It's incredibly difficult to imagine a plausible scenario where there are large scale naval battles without the war going nuclear, at which point fleet size is irrelevant.
(Of course I'd be more tempted to vote for Romney if he DID support building a fleet of modern battleships, because that would be awesome.)
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2012/10/24 14:57:13
Subject: Re:Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
Peregrine wrote: 2) It's incredibly difficult to imagine a plausible scenario where there are large scale naval battles without the war going nuclear, at which point fleet size is irrelevant.
I've seen you throw this idea around before, as though it were based on any kind of fact.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2012/10/24 15:03:49
Subject: Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
2) It's incredibly difficult to imagine a plausible scenario where there are large scale naval battles without the war going nuclear, at which point fleet size is irrelevant.
Well, maybe difficult for you.
Lets say the US and China clash over Taiwan. The US deploys carrier group or two, and the Chinese deploy their own naval assets in order to supplement their land-based airforce.
Why would the Chinese deploy nuclear weapons against the US? Why would the US deploy nuclear weapons against the Chinese?
This scenario took me less than 5 minutes to devise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/24 15:04:45
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/10/24 15:11:08
Subject: Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)
dogma wrote: Why would the Chinese deploy nuclear weapons against the US?
Nuclear anti-ship missiles are a good way of removing pesky carrier groups.
Why would the US deploy nuclear weapons against the Chinese?
Because when China sinks a carrier or three (even if the US wins the battle they're going to pay for it) everyone back home will be screaming for revenge, the US escalates with a counter-attack on China, and eventually someone pushes too far and the world ends.
Of course here's your real problem:
Lets say the US and China clash over Taiwan.
Which simply isn't going to happen. Neither country wants a war over it when the current situation is acceptable, China isn't stupid enough to commit economic suicide and start a war with a major trading partner, while the US probably isn't going to defend Taiwan to the death if the alternative is a full-scale war with China (just like Russia isn't going to start WWIII over it if we invade Iran).
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
