Reply to Boos Heard At GOP Debate After Gay Soldier Asks About 'Don't Ask'

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Boos Heard At GOP Debate After Gay Soldier Asks About 'Don't Ask'"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]No, no!  They weren't *booing*.  They were yelling, "Support the trooooooops!"

Anyway, the GOP has shat on the military for decades.  I mean, aside from placing little magnetic flags on their bumpers.  But they've been effective at playing "culture war" so the subset of the military that is very young, very southern, and very rural tends to just not think about it very much and pull the lever for the "Dixie/Country Music" party.[/quote]

Listen to the video. They are clearly booing. It's only a handful.  And then when Santorum esentially states he will reinstate DADT, there is huge applause.

The GOP, however, has given the military the best pay raises. Also, the GOP tends to fund the most number of defense projects.  This means better equipment to the troops.[img] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1 [/img][/quote]

Horseshit.  "Most number of defense projects" has no bearing whatsoever to "better equipment for the troops."  This is the sort of thing that only someone who knows *nothing* about the military would believe.  As far as "the gop...has given the military the best pay raises", that also smells like horseshit.  The fact that you've merely parroted it rather than providing any evidence leads to the conclusion it's a partisan article of faith rather than a rationally held belief.

Under the GOP, defense contractors do very well.  As do very rich people in general.  Generally speaking poor and lower middle class people get the shaft.  Most of the troops in the field are lower middle class.  You do the math.[/quote]

Actually, I did post evidence, however the link is broken - but you could have copied and pasted it into your browser to see it instead of just blasting of nonsense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1

Second, although defense contracts do line the pockets of defense contractors, they also provide the troops with better technology.  MRAP comes to mind immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP
Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear.  The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet. I know, I've worn them in combat. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar#Armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Helmet

Look at the pdf files for the payraises by year. The biggest payraises were during Republican years. You do the math. 
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/historicalpay.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/historical-military-pay-rates.html

I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.[/quote]

Your link showed that overall defense spending has skyrocketed under various GOP administrations.  It shouldn't be necessary to hold your hand and explain to you that a rise in overall defense spending has nothing to do with payraises.  Also, it's funny that you don't define "Republican years".  My guess is that your definition would be extremely, ahem, "flexible."

[quote]Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear.  The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet.[/quote]

This may be the dumbest argument I've heard so far.    Your incredibly hacky Heritage Foundation graph shows something on the order of a $300bn /year increase in the overall defense budget.  And you're trying to make the argument that this was largely a function of adapting Kevlar to protective uses.  As opposed to massive numbers of bloated, unnecessary weapons systems (like nuclear attack subs, and cripplingly expensive and redundant aircraft) and private defense contractor waste, fraud, and abuse.

It's funny, because this is exactly how the racket works:  spend billions and billions on exotic weapons systems, and sprawling mcmansions in NoVa for modern day robber barons who run the major defense contracting companies--while shortchanging the actual troops in the field--and when anyone bats an eye, you point to kevlar helmets.[/quote]

BTW, I used two examples - the MRAP and the helmet. MRAP costs a lot of $. Helmet, not so much. I could give you a lot more examples, but you'd still hold onto your beliefs that increased defense spending only lines rich peoples pockets.

I've already stated it does line their pockets - but it also does so much more, from helmets to MRAPs to better living units downrange to better housing at home. Yes, there's huge overruns in hige programs that I frankly wish would go away. But those are not the only projects. There's multiple programs working on various weapons systems to increase accuracy and decrease instances of friendly fire. There's increasing the information security, so our sensitive or classified documents are better protected. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics