If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Congress guts the Army's NFL, NBA, and NASCAR recruitment drives. Talk about cutting defense spending   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 85
    More: Obvious, NBA, NFL, NASCAR, Betty McCollum, John A. Boehner, Jack Kingston, Aric Almirola, NASCAR teams  
•       •       •

1210 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2012 at 9:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-19 10:24:09 AM

Ball Sack Obama: Hopefully, PBS and NPR are next on the chopping block.


Oh God no without PBS how the hell would I ever distract my kid so I have time to do dishes?
 
2012-07-19 10:24:18 AM

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: I heard on the radio this morning that the House already decided to keep the funding, making this article irrelevant


True story, Bro.

Late Thursday night, in a close 216 to 202 vote, the House of Representatives struck down a bipartisan amendment that would have cut $72 million from next year's $608 billion defense spending bill slated for professional sports sponsorships used to help with military recruiting.

They couldn't even cut 72 mil from a 608 billion dollar bill.

Something, something ...nice things.
 
2012-07-19 10:27:01 AM

IHadMeAVision: Ball Sack Obama: Hopefully, PBS and NPR are next on the chopping block.

Oh God no without PBS how the hell would I ever distract my kid so I have time to do dishes?


Can your kids count to Pepsi yet?
 
2012-07-19 10:28:32 AM

thurstonxhowell: Late Thursday night, in a close 216 to 202 vote, the House of Representatives struck down a bipartisan amendment that would have cut $72 million from next year's $608 billion defense spending bill slated for professional sports sponsorships used to help with military recruiting.

This being Fark, I should have assumed that the headline was the opposite of the article.


The headline was accurate at the time it was submitted. It says they are "talking about" cutting spending and the article references a Dem led initiative to cut this fat but of course the high profile appeal had it's intended effect and the cut got cut instead.

/Not subby.
 
2012-07-19 10:29:55 AM
Oh, FFS. Headline reading fail for me.

*hits self over head with rubber tennis shoe*

Ignore that last comment.
 
2012-07-19 10:33:06 AM
I think rather than cut recruitment at NFL and NBA games, they should shift it ALL to NASCAR. Because if those cars aren't flipping over into the crowd, something's got to chlorinate the gene pool a bit.
 
2012-07-19 10:50:31 AM
Seriously, is there anyone reading this thread who thinks that the US is going to cut its bloated military budget any time in the coming decades?

If so, please speak up.
 
2012-07-19 10:51:51 AM
Want to cut the budget? Bring our troops home! Afghanistan is going to go to hell whether we're there or not.
 
2012-07-19 10:58:31 AM
I'm all for NASCAR spending more money on defense. Sometimes it keeps de cars from crashing into de stands.
 
2012-07-19 11:00:09 AM

All_Farked_Up: Want to cut the budget? Bring our troops home! Afghanistan is going to go to hell whether we're there or not.


And just because we're not dropping smart bombs on brown people after that, why would we shrink the budget? At any given moment we may need to invade and occupy the entirety of the African continent. You don't want us doing that with this guy, do you?

i2.ytimg.com
 
2012-07-19 11:00:48 AM

MonkeyAngst: I'm all for NASCAR spending more money on defense. Sometimes it keeps de cars from crashing into de stands.


coeyagi: I think rather than cut recruitment at NFL and NBA games, they should shift it ALL to NASCAR. Because if those cars aren't flipping over into the crowd, something's got to chlorinate the gene pool a bit.


Why?
 
2012-07-19 11:07:19 AM
Everytime they develop a new weapon system, it's the other way around:


theblakeproject.typepad.com
 
2012-07-19 11:10:32 AM

EyeballKid: IHadMeAVision: Ball Sack Obama: Hopefully, PBS and NPR are next on the chopping block.

Oh God no without PBS how the hell would I ever distract my kid so I have time to do dishes?

Can your kids count to Pepsi yet?


Honestly my biggest complaint about TV is that it doesn't command his attention enough. Only 7 months so he's mostly interested in crawling around on suicide missions.
 
2012-07-19 11:14:50 AM

coeyagi: All_Farked_Up: Want to cut the budget? Bring our troops home! Afghanistan is going to go to hell whether we're there or not.

And just because we're not dropping smart bombs on brown people after that, why would we shrink the budget? At any given moment we may need to invade and occupy the entirety of the African continent. You don't want us doing that with this guy, do you?

[i2.ytimg.com image 320x180]


No, we don't need to invade and occupy anyone. That's not effective with asymmetric warfare.
 
2012-07-19 11:16:33 AM

IHadMeAVision: he's mostly interested in crawling around on suicide missions.


Sounds perfect for the military!
 
2012-07-19 11:17:17 AM

Lost Thought 00: karl2025: I'm not an expert in the military, but isn't recruiting one of the bigger problems the military is facing right now? If that's true, wouldn't a better cut be something we don't need so much?

The problem isn't the number of recruits so much as the quality. I don't think those drives were bringing in star recruits.


Are you saying we shouldn't recruit ignorant rednecks to go get killed?
 
2012-07-19 11:17:22 AM

duffman13: All of the active duty forces are looking to cut manning,with the Marines and army looking to have the largest cuts as our ground wars wind down.


Last I heard, the only exception to this was senior enlisted who were in a shortage.
 
2012-07-19 11:28:18 AM

farkityfarker: Seriously, is there anyone reading this thread who thinks that the US is going to cut its bloated military budget any time in the coming decades?

If so, please speak up.


You must be new to this country. Defense spending has nothing to do with defending America. Here's the simple formula politicians use:

They will cut: stuff soldiers actually need to do their job.

They will leave: stuff that makes their constituents (e.g., Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, etc.) rich, even if the military says they don't want it (happens every year).

/Defense is about transferring tax dollars to private industry, not about keeping us safe.
 
2012-07-19 11:49:16 AM
The house actually voted to keep the funding although it only passed by a handfull of votes.


The republicans who flipped were mostly the jingoistic, flag waving, racist tea partiers. Go figure.
 
2012-07-19 11:54:08 AM

AliceBToklasLives: farkityfarker: Seriously, is there anyone reading this thread who thinks that the US is going to cut its bloated military budget any time in the coming decades?

If so, please speak up.

You must be new to this country. Defense spending has nothing to do with defending America. Here's the simple formula politicians use:

They will cut: stuff soldiers actually need to do their job.

They will leave: stuff that makes their constituents (e.g., Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, etc.) rich, even if the military says they don't want it (happens every year).

/Defense is about transferring tax dollars to private industry, not about keeping us safe.


Exactly. If Congress really wants to make a difference how about canceling the USS Gorge H. W. Bushcoont7, and suspending all aircraft carrier construction for 40 years.
 
2012-07-19 11:59:57 AM

Slaves2Darkness: AliceBToklasLives: farkityfarker: Seriously, is there anyone reading this thread who thinks that the US is going to cut its bloated military budget any time in the coming decades?

If so, please speak up.

You must be new to this country. Defense spending has nothing to do with defending America. Here's the simple formula politicians use:

They will cut: stuff soldiers actually need to do their job.

They will leave: stuff that makes their constituents (e.g., Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, etc.) rich, even if the military says they don't want it (happens every year).

/Defense is about transferring tax dollars to private industry, not about keeping us safe.

Exactly. If Congress really wants to make a difference how about canceling the USS Gorge H. W. Bushcoont7, and suspending all aircraft carrier construction for 40 years.


Whoa I've been boobies by the filter, That was supposed to be USS Gorge H. W. Bushcoont7.
 
2012-07-19 12:01:03 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Slaves2Darkness: AliceBToklasLives: farkityfarker: Seriously, is there anyone reading this thread who thinks that the US is going to cut its bloated military budget any time in the coming decades?

If so, please speak up.

You must be new to this country. Defense spending has nothing to do with defending America. Here's the simple formula politicians use:

They will cut: stuff soldiers actually need to do their job.

They will leave: stuff that makes their constituents (e.g., Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, etc.) rich, even if the military says they don't want it (happens every year).

/Defense is about transferring tax dollars to private industry, not about keeping us safe.

Exactly. If Congress really wants to make a difference how about canceling the USS Gorge H. W. Bushcoont7, and suspending all aircraft carrier construction for 40 years.

Whoa I've been boobies by the filter, That was supposed to be USS Gorge H. W. Bushcoont7.


Dammit it did again that was supposed to be Cee Vee Nnn 77
 
2012-07-19 12:06:36 PM

sprawl15: duffman13: All of the active duty forces are looking to cut manning,with the Marines and army looking to have the largest cuts as our ground wars wind down.

Last I heard, the only exception to this was senior enlisted who were in a shortage.


I can't speak for the other services, but at least in the navy they have pushed back promotion cycles significantly because so many people are staying in. I'm looking to spend an extra 2-3 years compared to a normal cycle before they even look at me for promotion to Lieutenant Commander. I have a coworker who is looking to pin on Commander, and he has had his 'below zone' look for promotion 3 times, due to the shrinking of the 'in-zone' group each year. Normally you get a below zone look (you get promoted if you're awesome), in zone (normal cycle), and above zone (we haven't kicked you out yet, so here's one last chance to promote) fyi
 
2012-07-19 12:31:43 PM

duffman13: sprawl15: duffman13: All of the active duty forces are looking to cut manning,with the Marines and army looking to have the largest cuts as our ground wars wind down.

Last I heard, the only exception to this was senior enlisted who were in a shortage.

I can't speak for the other services, but at least in the navy they have pushed back promotion cycles significantly because so many people are staying in. I'm looking to spend an extra 2-3 years compared to a normal cycle before they even look at me for promotion to Lieutenant Commander. I have a coworker who is looking to pin on Commander, and he has had his 'below zone' look for promotion 3 times, due to the shrinking of the 'in-zone' group each year. Normally you get a below zone look (you get promoted if you're awesome), in zone (normal cycle), and above zone (we haven't kicked you out yet, so here's one last chance to promote) fyi


That's true for the army too. They also increased the time standard to make rank (starting with my husbands class so he was super pissed about waiting a few extra months to pin captain). They are not having recruiting problems , due to the economy. Speaking of which, I think it's cute that some wackadoo upthread advocated putting out a million people.That wouldn't lead to an economic crisis at all lol...
 
2012-07-19 12:38:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: rudemix: Much like milk and eggs, how will people ever learn of the Army's existence without commercials to let us know?

Are you suggesting that there aren't simply tons of people who never considered joining the Army until they saw a car with the word "Army" painted on it driving in circles?



Never underestimate the role of lead fumes in the equation.
 
2012-07-19 12:39:47 PM

EyeballKid: IHadMeAVision: Ball Sack Obama: Hopefully, PBS and NPR are next on the chopping block.

Oh God no without PBS how the hell would I ever distract my kid so I have time to do dishes?

Can your kids count to Pepsi yet?


Hey man, the only metric system of measurement I need to know is two liters
 
2012-07-19 01:01:32 PM

threadjackistan: karl2025: I'm not an expert in the military, but isn't recruiting one of the bigger problems the military is facing right now? If that's true, wouldn't a better cut be something we don't need so much?

Why would recruiting be a problem? It isn't 2006 anymore. The war is winding down and the economy is still in the toliet. They probably have a glut at this point.


They've had a "glut" as you say since the recession hit.
 
2012-07-19 02:21:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: rudemix: Much like milk and eggs, how will people ever learn of the Army's existence without commercials to let us know?

Are you suggesting that there aren't simply tons of people who never considered joining the Army until they saw a car with the word "Army" painted on it driving in circles?


Not sure anyone swayed in such a fashion would be Army material to begin with..
 
2012-07-19 02:22:18 PM
Why aren't the repubs supporting the defense cuts. Tens of thousand on the unemployment roll will make Obama look bad. Sounds right up their alley.
 
2012-07-19 02:59:08 PM

Proteios1: Why aren't the repubs supporting the defense cuts. Tens of thousand on the unemployment roll will make Obama look bad. Sounds right up their alley.


No, it makes him look good - they've been calling for government jobs to go down (which they've already been doing). But yes, then the overall jobs go down and that makes him look bad.

Obama can take any position at any given day at random and the GOP will find a) fault b) outrage or c) or faulty outrage with it depending on the amount of Drano they chased with their morning OJ.
 
2012-07-19 03:20:01 PM

BillCo: Wake me up when congress votes to cut their own expense budgets.


How much are the expense budgets? It's a politically easy move to make, and would do jack shiat to address the structural deficits, political corruption and bought and paid for politicians.
 
2012-07-19 03:54:14 PM

Ed Willy: BillCo: Wake me up when congress votes to cut their own expense budgets.

How much are the expense budgets? It's a politically easy move to make, and would do jack shiat to address the structural deficits, political corruption and bought and paid for politicians.


It would make BillCo appear less tired, that's for sure.
 
2012-07-19 04:23:51 PM
When they are no longer a sponser of NASCAR I wonder if they will get the same reverent treatment at the races. It will be interesting to observe how deep corporate patriotism actually goes.
 
2012-07-19 07:08:59 PM
blogs.citypages.com

Pulling the military's NASCAR budget? That's a lynchin'.
 
2012-07-19 07:40:33 PM

AliceBToklasLives: farkityfarker: Seriously, is there anyone reading this thread who thinks that the US is going to cut its bloated military budget any time in the coming decades?

If so, please speak up.

You must be new to this country. Defense spending has nothing to do with defending America. Here's the simple formula politicians use:

They will cut: stuff soldiers actually need to do their job.

They will leave: stuff that makes their constituents (e.g., Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, etc.) rich, even if the military says they don't want it (happens every year).

/Defense is about transferring tax dollars to private industry, not about keeping us safe.


The number of upgrades I've had to check on a plane that's entering the real end of their service cycle this year alone is obscene. I've seen more upgrades come out for a plane they're going to mothball in 2 years than I have in the 5 years prior to that.

They're also upgrades that are all "required" to be done by contractors, despite the fact that a quarter of them can be done in less than 15 minutes by damn near anyone with two hands. There's one I know that can be done by someone even if they only have one hand.
 
Displayed 35 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report