That's correct. My point isn't about Trump, it is about pursuing a potentially antiquated policy on how to project naval power. Improved stealth technology on submarines and vastly improved sea skimming, anti-ship missiles are serious dangers to the way the US Navy currently projects its military power. That doesn't include the inability of the carriers to operate in Persian Gulf, which coupled with the limited range of the F-35, means that sorties will be of shorter duration.
The US military is in love with big, expensive weapons systems, which benefit both the huge defense contractors and retired military officers who use their influence to sell those systems. In turn, if you're a military officer in the Pentagon, it is in your self-interest to promote those systems as well, as it paves a lucrative career when you retire from active duty.
However that doesn't excuse the Trump or future administrations from questioning the arms build-up, in terms of tackling our current and long-term interests. Are those expenditures justifiable, are they based on decisions that are antiquated in light of changing goals, emerging threats and technologies? I sincerely doubt his team has tackled the most fundamental issues.
Yep. Are we seeing Billy Mitchell 2.0, only with aircraft carriers instead of battleships?
The President of the United States refused to shake the hand of HIS GUEST AT THE WHITE HOUSE who is the CHANCELLOR/HEAD OF STATE of our FRIEND AND ALLY.
So disgusting on so many levels. Rude, arrogant, ignorant, sexist, low-class, insulting, embarrassing. He is the lowest of the low.
Joined: 28 Nov 2007 Posts: 11277 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:31 am Post subject:
ChefLinda wrote:
The President of the United States refused to shake the hand of HIS GUEST AT THE WHITE HOUSE who is the CHANCELLOR/HEAD OF STATE of our FRIEND AND ALLY.
So disgusting on so many levels. Rude, arrogant, ignorant, sexist, low-class, insulting, embarrassing. He is the lowest of the low.
His answer to the German reporters question "I'm not an isolationist I'm a trader, I'm a trader, I'm a trader"
The President of the United States refused to shake the hand of HIS GUEST AT THE WHITE HOUSE who is the CHANCELLOR/HEAD OF STATE of our FRIEND AND ALLY.
So disgusting on so many levels. Rude, arrogant, ignorant, sexist, low-class, insulting, embarrassing. He is the lowest of the low.
His answer to the German reporters question "I'm not an isolationist I'm a trader, I'm a trader, I'm a trader"
I need that on an audio loop....#Traitor.
"I'm not an isolationist I'm a traitor, I'm a traitor, I'm a traitor"
Trump’s head of the Department of Health and Human Services traded stocks of health-related companies while working on legislation affecting the firms. A source says Bharara was overseeing an investigation. The White House didn’t immediately comment.
I don't think the White House bothered to vet any of the nominees.
Trump’s head of the Department of Health and Human Services traded stocks of health-related companies while working on legislation affecting the firms. A source says Bharara was overseeing an investigation. The White House didn’t immediately comment.
I don't think the White House bothered to vet any of the nominees.
Firing Preet was a huge mistake. He showed no favoritism in who he investigated, red or blue. He's the exact type of guy you want in that role.
Joined: 07 May 2014 Posts: 13811 Location: Boulder ;)
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:51 am Post subject:
ChefLinda wrote:
The President of the United States refused to shake the hand of HIS GUEST AT THE WHITE HOUSE who is the CHANCELLOR/HEAD OF STATE of our FRIEND AND ALLY.
So disgusting on so many levels. Rude, arrogant, ignorant, sexist, low-class, insulting, embarrassing. He is the lowest of the low.
Can you imagine Bannon Kislyak and Trump planning this?
He only like women who know their sensual power
If they display and have power on the level of a man
Trump goes into delusional chauvinist fantasy mode
I can't watch it.. my system doesn't need anything to fear them even more
They want war because they know it galvanizes certain parts
of the country and they will lose their minds and hearts and hold
up bibles and pitchforks because they've been taught they are
doing the law of their imagination.
Our whole educational system must be revamped to
create CONSCIOUS human citizens
I'm sorry I didn't do more...
@ read somewhere that Trump told homeland security
to only target Muslims for domestic terrorism and to
leave the Aryan groups alone............
Rattle those sabers! Pump up that military budget and get ready for Trumps Great War!
It will be interesting to see how North Korea reacts. Trump and Tillerson are increasing the pressure, but as Trump's tweet indicates, the real target may be China.
Trump’s head of the Department of Health and Human Services traded stocks of health-related companies while working on legislation affecting the firms. A source says Bharara was overseeing an investigation. The White House didn’t immediately comment.
I don't think the White House bothered to vet any of the nominees.
Firing Preet was a huge mistake. He showed no favoritism in who he investigated, red or blue. He's the exact type of guy you want in that role.
That's probable why he was fired. Trump wants Charlie McCarthy's. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
The government doesnt need to be involved in the everyday lives of people.
So you don't drive, right?
Or drink water. Or use electricity. Or use telephones. Or use the internet. Or use the police, fire department, DMV, airplanes, fresh produce, etc., etc.
It's not just an ideological bubble, you see ... ?
It's also a cognitive bubble. Check that ... it's actually just a real bubble. When you dwell in this bubble, who needs public infrastructure and services ... ?
You guys got me!! I admit it was a poor choice of words. What i was trying to communicate is that they dont need to be involved in every single aspect of everything. Obviously the job of the governments job is to protect and ensure the well being of its people.
I understood what you meant from the get go. It takes a special kind of ability to read between the lines and not over exaggerate.
"I want less government in my life"
"durrr. okay durr so, you don't like want to eat or speak freely?...durrr!
Fret not, I suspect nobody expected you to understand the issue anyway ... since there's not a lot of bootstrapping going on here, I'll spell it out for you: this individual made a clumsy effort to sidestep dollars (the public infrastructure that s/he has relied on since the womb, just like nearly all of us) to grasp at dimes (the "government spending" that rounding errors like Mick Mulvaney dismiss as a "waste of your money") ... others, myself included, highlighted the essential fallacy in the effort.
Trump: "Major meeting" tonight at Mar-a-Lago to "talk all about the VA"
*turns to VA Sec.*
Will you be there?
*awkwardly shakes head no*
Another trip to play golf and promote his private club while pretending it's to have a major meeting about vets. #SlimeBall
Quote:
In reality, it has been funded largely by other people. Tax records show the Trump Foundation has received $5.5 million from Trump over its life, and nothing since 2008. It received $9.3 million from other people.
Another unusual feature: One of the foundation’s most consistent causes was Trump himself.
New findings, for instance, show that the Trump Foundation’s largest-ever gift — $264,631 — was used to renovate a fountain outside the windows of Trump’s Plaza Hotel.
Its smallest-ever gift, for $7, was paid to the Boy Scouts in 1989, at a time when it cost $7 to register a new Scout. Trump’s oldest son was 11 at the time. Trump did not respond to a question about whether the money was paid to register him.
Fret not, I suspect nobody expected you to understand the issue anyway ... since there's not a lot of bootstrapping going on here, I'll spell it out for you: this individual made a clumsy effort to sidestep dollars (the public infrastructure that s/he has relied on since the womb, just like nearly all of us) to grasp at dimes (the "government spending" that rounding errors like Mick Mulvaney dismiss as a "waste of your money") ... others, myself included, highlighted the essential fallacy in the effort.
I'm sure that LGL was just trying to evoke a reaction (and succeeded), but don't be so fast to dismiss the underlying viewpoint. Even those of us who are fiscally conservative agree that we need the government to do certain things, and all but the most lunatic fringe libertarians agree that government has a legitimate role in society. The extent of that role is open to honest debate (to the extent that such a thing exists in these times). Just because the government provides roads and police/fire protection does not mean that the federal government needs to pay for school lunches (just to pick an example). Maybe we will decide that we want the federal government to pay for school lunches, but there is a legitimate, defensible position that this is not a proper function of the federal government.
The inevitable response is something inflammatory like "You want kids to go hungry!" From the other side of the political fence, the parallel comments are "You don't care about terrorism!" or "You don't support our soldiers!" The truth is that we care about all of those things, but we still need to pay for them. If the public is not willing to pay the taxes, then we can't afford it.
Fret not, I suspect nobody expected you to understand the issue anyway ... since there's not a lot of bootstrapping going on here, I'll spell it out for you: this individual made a clumsy effort to sidestep dollars (the public infrastructure that s/he has relied on since the womb, just like nearly all of us) to grasp at dimes (the "government spending" that rounding errors like Mick Mulvaney dismiss as a "waste of your money") ... others, myself included, highlighted the essential fallacy in the effort.
I'm sure that LGL was just trying to evoke a reaction (and succeeded), but don't be so fast to dismiss the underlying viewpoint. Even those of us who are fiscally conservative agree that we need the government to do certain things, and all but the most lunatic fringe libertarians agree that government has a legitimate role in society. The extent of that role is open to honest debate (to the extent that such a thing exists in these times). Just because the government provides roads and police/fire protection does not mean that the federal government needs to pay for school lunches (just to pick an example). Maybe we will decide that we want the federal government to pay for school lunches, but there is a legitimate, defensible position that this is not a proper function of the federal government.
The inevitable response is something inflammatory like "You want kids to go hungry!" From the other side of the political fence, the parallel comments are "You don't care about terrorism!" or "You don't support our soldiers!" The truth is that we care about all of those things, but we still need to pay for them. If the public is not willing to pay the taxes, then we can't afford it.
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 5234 Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:14 pm Post subject:
LakesGnrLake wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
the association wrote:
Fret not, I suspect nobody expected you to understand the issue anyway ... since there's not a lot of bootstrapping going on here, I'll spell it out for you: this individual made a clumsy effort to sidestep dollars (the public infrastructure that s/he has relied on since the womb, just like nearly all of us) to grasp at dimes (the "government spending" that rounding errors like Mick Mulvaney dismiss as a "waste of your money") ... others, myself included, highlighted the essential fallacy in the effort.
I'm sure that LGL was just trying to evoke a reaction (and succeeded), but don't be so fast to dismiss the underlying viewpoint. Even those of us who are fiscally conservative agree that we need the government to do certain things, and all but the most lunatic fringe libertarians agree that government has a legitimate role in society. The extent of that role is open to honest debate (to the extent that such a thing exists in these times). Just because the government provides roads and police/fire protection does not mean that the federal government needs to pay for school lunches (just to pick an example). Maybe we will decide that we want the federal government to pay for school lunches, but there is a legitimate, defensible position that this is not a proper function of the federal government.
The inevitable response is something inflammatory like "You want kids to go hungry!" From the other side of the political fence, the parallel comments are "You don't care about terrorism!" or "You don't support our soldiers!" The truth is that we care about all of those things, but we still need to pay for them. If the public is not willing to pay the taxes, then we can't afford it.
Trump’s head of the Department of Health and Human Services traded stocks of health-related companies while working on legislation affecting the firms. A source says Bharara was overseeing an investigation. The White House didn’t immediately comment.
I don't think the White House bothered to vet any of the nominees.
Firing Preet was a huge mistake. He showed no favoritism in who he investigated, red or blue. He's the exact type of guy you want in that role.
Yep, that is unless he is investigating the heck out of you and your staff.
Did anyone catch Price during the CNN town-hall? He was such a . . . such a . . . I want to say, scumbag, but it is just not nearly strong enough . . . OK . . . he was such a, R-word. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Fret not, I suspect nobody expected you to understand the issue anyway ... since there's not a lot of bootstrapping going on here, I'll spell it out for you: this individual made a clumsy effort to sidestep dollars (the public infrastructure that s/he has relied on since the womb, just like nearly all of us) to grasp at dimes (the "government spending" that rounding errors like Mick Mulvaney dismiss as a "waste of your money") ... others, myself included, highlighted the essential fallacy in the effort.
I'm sure that LGL was just trying to evoke a reaction (and succeeded), but don't be so fast to dismiss the underlying viewpoint. Even those of us who are fiscally conservative agree that we need the government to do certain things, and all but the most lunatic fringe libertarians agree that government has a legitimate role in society. The extent of that role is open to honest debate (to the extent that such a thing exists in these times). Just because the government provides roads and police/fire protection does not mean that the federal government needs to pay for school lunches (just to pick an example). Maybe we will decide that we want the federal government to pay for school lunches, but there is a legitimate, defensible position that this is not a proper function of the federal government.
The inevitable response is something inflammatory like "You want kids to go hungry!" From the other side of the political fence, the parallel comments are "You don't care about terrorism!" or "You don't support our soldiers!" The truth is that we care about all of those things, but we still need to pay for them. If the public is not willing to pay the taxes, then we can't afford it.
At least someone gets it.
Because that's exactly what you said...lolllll
Yes i think we should all live in forest and wipe our asses with leaves. /s
he's mocking the intelligence community, and some powerful congressmen. Either he highly overestimates his powers or he's simply stupid. They're giving him enough rope to hang himself, and once he's out, they're going after him. I don't think he understands what it means to get entangled with the intelligence community.
Trump to Merkel: ‘Perhaps’ Obama wiretapped us both
he's mocking the intelligence community, and some powerful congressmen. Either he highly overestimates his powers or he's simply stupid. They're giving him enough rope to hang himself, and once he's out, they're going after him. I don't think he understands what it means to get entangled with the intelligence community.
Trump to Merkel: ‘Perhaps’ Obama wiretapped us both
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52624 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:00 pm Post subject:
governator wrote:
paymonM wrote:
he's mocking the intelligence community, and some powerful congressmen. Either he highly overestimates his powers or he's simply stupid. They're giving him enough rope to hang himself, and once he's out, they're going after him. I don't think he understands what it means to get entangled with the intelligence community.
Trump to Merkel: ‘Perhaps’ Obama wiretapped us both
The way this man had been and has continued to denigrate president Obama is infuriating
The truly infuriating part is that Trump has been denigrating our nation. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
NDIANAPOLIS — The day should have been one of glory and celebration for five fourth-graders.
The Pleasant Run Elementary students had just won a robotics challenge at Plainfield High School, and the students — new to bot competition this year — were one step closer to the Vex IQ State Championship.
The team is made up of 9- and 10-year-olds. Two are African American and three are Latino.
As the group, called the Pleasant Run PantherBots, and their parents left the challenge last month in Plainfield, Ind., competing students from other Indianapolis-area schools and their parents were waiting for them in the parking lot.
“Go back to Mexico!” two or three kids screamed at their brown-skin peers and their parents, according to some who were there.
This verbal attack had spilled over from the gymnasium. While the children were competing, one or two parents disparaged the Pleasant Run kids with racist comments — and loud enough for the Pleasant Run families to hear.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum