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.
2013/01/31 21:33:10
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
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..
2013/01/31 22:14:54
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
Not really. He's like the COO of our corporation and 98% of us working the mail room. Other than how hard he works to get us funding he's essentially a non issue. The joint senior NCOs and Chiefs of Staff has more impact and even theirs is long term. The under secretaries and generals do most of the work, and the lowest level that really has a direct impact on soldiers is a corps commander.
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..
2013/01/31 22:41:31
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
I think it just depends on how in Obama's pocket he is. Is he going to fight to hold onto our funding, or will he be a yes man and make us the first (and only) target for spending cuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This made me chuckle.
whembly wrote:Lindsey Graham (!!) took Hagel to task of his anti-Isreal statements... but we know that about Hagel.
However, Ted Cruz PLAYED a Al Jazeera video where Hagel accepted the premise that the US is "the World's Bully"!
Um... now I really don't want this guy for SoD.
Questions to those who serve... how do you feel about this?
How are you capable of posting a video you obviously haven't watched? At no point did Hagel accept the prmise that the US is "the World's Bully". He accepted the premise that the US is perceived as such by the world.
That is a very, very different thing. I'm not sure exactly how you could have possibly mistaken one concept for the other.
EDIT: also, please note that I have no idea who Hagel is, and I -obviously- have no dog in this fight. I'm just putting this out there simply out of my dislike of wanton spin-doctoring and demagoguery.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/01 01:11:35
2013/02/01 01:17:03
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
whembly wrote: Lindsey Graham (!!) took Hagel to task of his anti-Isreal statements... but we know that about Hagel.
We do? Since when? As I see it any anti-Israel behavior on Hagel's part has been massively overblown. And any allegation that he is antisemitic is completely without evidence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/01 01:18:05
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2013/02/01 01:57:22
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
AustonT wrote: Not really. He's like the COO of our corporation and 98% of us working the mail room. Other than how hard he works to get us funding he's essentially a non issue. The joint senior NCOs and Chiefs of Staff has more impact and even theirs is long term. The under secretaries and generals do most of the work, and the lowest level that really has a direct impact on soldiers is a corps commander.
Okay.. that makes sense.
Let's hope he's a big believer in delegating....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I think it just depends on how in Obama's pocket he is. Is he going to fight to hold onto our funding, or will he be a yes man and make us the first (and only) target for spending cuts.
Um... aren't the SoD in the President's pocket anyways?
Automatically Appended Next Post: This made me chuckle.
Interesting. During the election, when the non-wealthy were voting their own perceived self interests, there was a clamor of how that was ruining the country. And yet in this thread, apparently the sole important criteria for the defense crowd to determine the worth of a politician is how many tax dollars he can steer their way. Funny how that worked.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/02/01 02:09:08
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
whembly wrote:Lindsey Graham (!!) took Hagel to task of his anti-Isreal statements... but we know that about Hagel.
However, Ted Cruz PLAYED a Al Jazeera video where Hagel accepted the premise that the US is "the World's Bully"!
Um... now I really don't want this guy for SoD.
Questions to those who serve... how do you feel about this?
How are you capable of posting a video you obviously haven't watched? At no point did Hagel accept the prmise that the US is "the World's Bully". He accepted the premise that the US is perceived as such by the world.
That is a very, very different thing. I'm not sure exactly how you could have possibly mistaken one concept for the other.
I re-watched again... to me, it seems he did, but it can be argued otherwise... the point is that this guy goes on Al Jeezera (of all places) respond to the claim that the US (and its inference, the military) is "the world's bully" and he stated to the effect that it's an "important observation".
EDIT: also, please note that I have no idea who Hagel is, and I -obviously- have no dog in this fight. I'm just putting this out there simply out of my dislike of wanton spin-doctoring and demagoguery.
whembly wrote:Lindsey Graham (!!) took Hagel to task of his anti-Isreal statements... but we know that about Hagel.
However, Ted Cruz PLAYED a Al Jazeera video where Hagel accepted the premise that the US is "the World's Bully"!
Um... now I really don't want this guy for SoD.
Questions to those who serve... how do you feel about this?
How are you capable of posting a video you obviously haven't watched? At no point did Hagel accept the prmise that the US is "the World's Bully". He accepted the premise that the US is perceived as such by the world.
That is a very, very different thing. I'm not sure exactly how you could have possibly mistaken one concept for the other.
I re-watched again... to me, it seems he did, but it can be argued otherwise... the point is that this guy goes on Al Jeezera (of all places) respond to the claim that the US (and its inference, the military) is "the world's bully" and he stated to the effect that it's an "important observation".
That IS an important observation. It indicates how obvious is the fact that the USA has lost the "hearts and minds" of the rest of the world (or at least in many of the places where they once held them). To say as you have that he has done something damaging to the USA merely by his acknowledgement that many people believe the USA is arrogant and mean, rather than dismissing those people outright, is a perfect example of the mindset that caused those beliefs in the first place.
And I fail to understand how the location being for Al Jazeera makes any difference at all. Al Jazeera is a global news network that is generally respected by everyone except for the American Christian Fundamentalists and their own private programming network, FoxNews)
2013/02/01 02:37:58
Subject: Re:Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
Ouze wrote: Interesting. During the election, when the non-wealthy were voting their own perceived self interests, there was a clamor of how that was ruining the country. And yet in this thread, apparently the sole important criteria for the defense crowd to determine the worth of a politician is how many tax dollars he can steer their way. Funny how that worked.
The defense crowd is the defense crowd, generally speaking, because it believes defense is actually important, and likely not best accomplished by massively cutting our defense capabilities.
2013/02/01 02:41:29
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
whembly wrote:Lindsey Graham (!!) took Hagel to task of his anti-Isreal statements... but we know that about Hagel.
However, Ted Cruz PLAYED a Al Jazeera video where Hagel accepted the premise that the US is "the World's Bully"!
Um... now I really don't want this guy for SoD.
Questions to those who serve... how do you feel about this?
How are you capable of posting a video you obviously haven't watched? At no point did Hagel accept the prmise that the US is "the World's Bully". He accepted the premise that the US is perceived as such by the world.
That is a very, very different thing. I'm not sure exactly how you could have possibly mistaken one concept for the other.
I re-watched again... to me, it seems he did, but it can be argued otherwise... the point is that this guy goes on Al Jeezera (of all places) respond to the claim that the US (and its inference, the military) is "the world's bully" and he stated to the effect that it's an "important observation".
That IS an important observation. It indicates how obvious is the fact that the USA has lost the "hearts and minds" of the rest of the world (or at least in many of the places where they once held them). To say as you have that he has done something damaging to the USA merely by his acknowledgement that many people believe the USA is arrogant and mean, rather than dismissing those people outright, is a perfect example of the mindset that caused those beliefs in the first place.
Okay... I'll give ya prompt for that.
I just wished he made a defense... that's all.
And I fail to understand how the location being for Al Jazeera makes any difference at all. Al Jazeera is a global news network that is generally respected by everyone except for the American Christian Fundamentalists and their own private programming network, FoxNews)
k... no point discussing further on that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/01 02:41:47
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/01 02:55:00
Subject: Re:Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
Man, the right wing bs machine is just really damn lazy these days.
“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.
2013/02/01 02:58:20
Subject: Re:Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
Ouze wrote: Interesting. During the election, when the non-wealthy were voting their own perceived self interests, there was a clamor of how that was ruining the country. And yet in this thread, apparently the sole important criteria for the defense crowd to determine the worth of a politician is how many tax dollars he can steer their way. Funny how that worked.
Yeah I've always thought it was funny how defense spending which is explicitly provided as one of three reasons congress was authorized to collect taxes was "discretionary" but the debt (another third) and entitlement programs are mandatory spending. Wierd right? Defense spending should be a mandatory percentage of the budget, partially to limit its spending, and partially to protect it's core monetary needs. Anything above that % should be discretionary.
Interest on the debt is 6% of our total spending, mandatory public welfare is 56% so let's split the difference and set the mandatory spending of the DoD at 31% of the budget.
That's only twice what we spend now.
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..
2013/02/01 05:03:46
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
And he was not wrong to do so. Clinton was all about carpet-bombing people, and Obama's drone strikes aren't winning any favours, either. But neither was so outwardly arrogant and mean-spirited about their actions as the Bush Jr government.
Bush the Lesser is unquestionably the avatar of any resentment the world holds towards the USA.
2013/02/01 07:43:13
Subject: Re:Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
AustonT wrote: Yeah I've always thought it was funny how defense spending which is explicitly provided as one of three reasons congress was authorized to collect taxes was "discretionary" but the debt (another third) and entitlement programs are mandatory spending. Wierd right?
No, mandatory means the spending in mandatory under a specific law. So medicare is mandatory, because there's a law on the books saying government is to provide healthcare for certain people for their healthcare.
Whereas there are no laws in place saying the military must buy some new tanks, or anything like that. So what they get is procured through spending requests.
That's all those terms mean, mandatory and discretionary. That in order to change, either increase or decrease, mandatory items you actually have to change the laws that drive them, whereas to change discretionary items you simply approve or reject the submissions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/01 07:47:02
“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.
2013/02/01 11:15:03
Subject: Re:Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
AustonT wrote: Yeah I've always thought it was funny how defense spending which is explicitly provided as one of three reasons congress was authorized to collect taxes was "discretionary" but the debt (another third) and entitlement programs are mandatory spending. Wierd right?
No, mandatory means the spending in mandatory under a specific law. So medicare is mandatory, because there's a law on the books saying government is to provide healthcare for certain people for their healthcare.
Whereas there are no laws in place saying the military must buy some new tanks, or anything like that. So what they get is procured through spending requests.
That's all those terms mean, mandatory and discretionary. That in order to change, either increase or decrease, mandatory items you actually have to change the laws that drive them, whereas to change discretionary items you simply approve or reject the submissions.
It's almost as if I understand the system of spending in our country and wrote about it without taking the extra time to write the legislation solely for the purpose of postin on Dakka.
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..
2013/02/03 06:15:49
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
A lot of it is mostly political grandstanding much like the Benghazi hearings. Some of these senators want to look tough on camera so they can show what they did when it comes to primaries or election time. The Dems have done the same thing before with other appointees of Bush and the cycle continues. Though it is not surprising that Republicans will go this far to oppose anything Obama does even by appointing a Republican ex Senator.
Obama could say oxygen is good and have the Republicans oppose him and say he is anti-carbon.
I don't think its mythical to propose that a politician doesn't adhere to the same political positions as the rest of his party at large does. Mitt Romney was a Republican, but he certainly didn't act much like one at times when he was a governor.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/03 10:26:44
Seaward wrote: Well, Hagel's a Republican in much the same way that Arlen Specter was a Republican.
Sorry, is there some mythical standard of Republicanness that you have to pass to be a "true" Republican?
No.
There is, however, a certain level of adherence to mainstream Republican positions that's expected of you if you want to be liked politically by mainstream Republicans.
2013/02/03 10:41:25
Subject: Chuck Hagel getting spanked at the confirmation hearing...
whembly wrote: I just wished he made a defense... that's all.
What defense would you have wanted him to make exactly to the claims that the USA bullies the rest of the world? There isn't a lot that can be said to counter the growing body count and huge amount of destruction caused by the US's direct involvement in the rest of the world, or the more indirect effects caused by their overseas policy.
Pretty much the only one I can think of off the top of my head is that the USA provides aid to some contries in the time of disaster (good example being the last time the far east got a large tidal wave, the US armed forces were unloading tonnes of supplies etc).
SilverMK2 wrote: What defense would you have wanted him to make exactly to the claims that the USA bullies the rest of the world?
"No, we don't," would be a start.
It may play well with the US crowd but unfortunately that won't fly with the rest of the world. Unfortunately that is who you need to be worried about at this point in time on this particular set of issues.
