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.

(NewsMax)   As Obama rattles the war sabres, he's cutting military pay raises in half, violating federal law and boosting troop morale as we head into WWIII   (newsmax.com) divider line 196
    More: Dumbass, Wwiii, President Obama, NAFTA, national emergency, world leaders, genetically modified organisms, federal law, Military Officers Association of America  
•       •       •

1758 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 9:02 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-09 05:35:56 AM
Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?
 
2013-09-09 05:43:34 AM
Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), calculated that the reduced pay raise could cost an officer with 10 years of service about $52 a month next year


the horror
 
2013-09-09 07:30:15 AM
Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.
 
2013-09-09 08:17:19 AM

EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.


Excellent point. Doesn't matter what President Obama does, it's wrong and an impeachable offense.
 
2013-09-09 09:06:22 AM
CURSE YOU FARTBONGO!
 
2013-09-09 09:06:47 AM
Not going to give NewsMax a click.  What law did he break?   Trying to start military action while not being Republican?
 
2013-09-09 09:06:52 AM
If by violating the law you mean Obama is following the law, then the headline is right.
 
2013-09-09 09:06:52 AM
newsmax?
 
2013-09-09 09:06:54 AM
So today the GOP thinks that government workers don't make enough money.
 
2013-09-09 09:07:46 AM
I guess he needed the money to pay Raytheon for the cruise missiles
 
2013-09-09 09:07:54 AM
Hey, here's a concept: why don't we raise taxes on the wealthy people who require the US military to secure their assets abroad and give these true patriots in uniform the pay raises they so desperately need?
 
2013-09-09 09:08:12 AM
The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.
 
2013-09-09 09:08:44 AM
Yes, NewsMax is a dumbass. Or anyone reading it.
 
2013-09-09 09:08:58 AM

HotWingConspiracy: So today the GOP thinks that government workers don't make enough money.


They should probably unionize. That'd show Balrog HUSSEIN 0bamao.
 
2013-09-09 09:09:36 AM
If I learned anything from douchebags recently, it was when we were talking about tying cost of living increases for social security to Chained CPI. What I learned was that a reduced increase is not the same as a pay cut. So just be glad you're getting an increase. Is that how it works here too?
 
2013-09-09 09:10:26 AM

theorellior: Hey, here's a concept: why don't we raise taxes on the wealthy people who require the US military to secure their assets abroad and give these true patriots in uniform the pay raises they so desperately need?


I didn't read the article because newsmax, but Obama wants to start an illegal war on Syria, to what "assets" do you refer?
 
2013-09-09 09:10:41 AM

AirForceVet: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

Excellent point. Doesn't matter what President Obama does, it's wrong and an impeachable offense.


Yep... I heard he dropped a deuce yesterday in the bathroom right off of the Oval Office, within 20 feet of the Resolute Desk!! That disrespectful N---, wait, that lazy-ass Jungle---, um let me try again, that watermelon eating mon---. Ah, Hell, YOU know what I mean, right? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...
 
2013-09-09 09:10:41 AM

EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.


I was gonna say....
 
2013-09-09 09:12:03 AM

Mikey1969: Yep... I heard he dropped a deuce yesterday in the bathroom right off of the Oval Office, within 20 feet of the Resolute Desk!! That disrespectful N---, wait, that lazy-ass Jungle---, um let me try again, that watermelon eating mon---. Ah, Hell, YOU know what I mean, right? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...


I guess Obama heeled it down the shower drain, too. He nasty.
 
2013-09-09 09:12:45 AM
Obama is acting just like GWBush just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet most of the people who supported Bush back then are against Obama going after Syria today even though their justifications are the same.


And enough of this WWIII shtick, if US bombing some country is your basis we'd be on WWX by now.
 
Boe
2013-09-09 09:13:24 AM

theorellior: HotWingConspiracy: So today the GOP thinks that government workers don't make enough money.

They should probably unionize. That'd show Balrog HUSSEIN 0bamao.


+1 for remembering to include Balorg
 
Boe
2013-09-09 09:14:14 AM

Boe: theorellior: HotWingConspiracy: So today the GOP thinks that government workers don't make enough money.

They should probably unionize. That'd show Balrog HUSSEIN 0bamao.

+1 for remembering to include Balorg


Balrog.

BALROG.

/need coffee and to learn to type
 
2013-09-09 09:14:32 AM
We need to curb government spending.  Unless it's on shiat *I* like, then cutting spending is soshulzm.
 
2013-09-09 09:14:42 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?


A supposed lack of significant negative impact does not justify violation of federal law. However, because the report is from Newsmax, the allegation of a violation of law is dubious at best; in fact, the claim of a cut in military pay raises is itself dubious until confirmed by an outside source.
 
2013-09-09 09:15:32 AM
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-09 09:16:45 AM
I see the checks from Newsmax keep clearing...
 
2013-09-09 09:17:09 AM
thanks alot, presidebt sombrero
 
2013-09-09 09:17:39 AM
FTA: The federal law says military pay raises must be based on the Employment Cost Index compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which ties military raises to private sector pay growth. Under that formula, military personnel should be getting a 1.8 percent pay raise beginning in January 2014, CNS News reported.
But the law also states that the president can inform Congress of an alternative pay adjustment "if because of national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, the president considers the pay adjustment which would otherwise be required by this section in any year to be inappropriate."


So, basically the opposite of the headline.
 
2013-09-09 09:17:49 AM

Headso: [i39.tinypic.com image 125x125]


pfft. that guy's a pussy. no way he could stand up to my extreme prison fighting system.
 
2013-09-09 09:19:50 AM

Dimensio: CPT Ethanolic: Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?

A supposed lack of significant negative impact does not justify violation of federal law. However, because the report is from Newsmax, the allegation of a violation of law is dubious at best; in fact, the claim of a cut in military pay raises is itself dubious until confirmed by an outside source.


from the end of the article...

"The House passed a bill in July authorizing the 1.8 percent raise, but the Senate has set the raise at 1 percent as recommended by Obama."

there is no violation of the law. just the legislative process.
 
2013-09-09 09:20:19 AM
Have to keep being the wet blanket here, and pointing out that I am 63 years old, and that this precises process of bullshiat has pretty much been our foreign policy all my life. It's nice to see people finally deciding they don't like it - I've always hated it - on the other hand it's kind of stupidly sad that they think it's "Obama's Foreign Policy", and that's why they can finally be bothered to complain about it.
Still - better late than never.
 
2013-09-09 09:20:50 AM

Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....


I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.
 
2013-09-09 09:21:01 AM
sorry I mean sombrer0
 
2013-09-09 09:21:12 AM

log_jammin: Headso: [i39.tinypic.com image 125x125]

pfft. that guy's a pussy. no way he could stand up to my extreme prison fighting system.


we're gonna have to disagree on that but I'm sure can we agree on the dating secret the liberal media doesn't want you to know about...
 
2013-09-09 09:21:15 AM

Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.


One Nimitz-class aircraft carrier wins WW1 by itself. Your argument is invalid.
 
2013-09-09 09:21:28 AM
Gotta say, if the president told me that he's cutting my raise in half, and then said he's sending me to Syria to provide air support for al Qaeda, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.

Military personnel are professionals who will do their jobs regardless, but I'd bet morale isn't exactly at an all time high right now.
 
2013-09-09 09:21:55 AM
FTFA:  Obama wrote to congressional leaders: "I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members, who have made such great contributions to our nation over the past decade of war. As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our nation on a sustainable fiscal course."

From about a year ago (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/21/letter-preside nt -regarding-alternative-plan-pay-increases-civilian-feder):  Civilian Federal employees have already made significant sacrifices as a result of a two year pay freeze.  As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course.  This is an effort that continues to require tough choices and each of us to do our fair share.

Oddly similar?
 
2013-09-09 09:22:11 AM

log_jammin: Dimensio: CPT Ethanolic: Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?

A supposed lack of significant negative impact does not justify violation of federal law. However, because the report is from Newsmax, the allegation of a violation of law is dubious at best; in fact, the claim of a cut in military pay raises is itself dubious until confirmed by an outside source.

from the end of the article...

"The House passed a bill in July authorizing the 1.8 percent raise, but the Senate has set the raise at 1 percent as recommended by Obama."

there is no violation of the law. just the legislative process.


As Mr. Obama is not a legitimate President, due to not being a "natural-born" United States citizen, any recommendation that he makes cannot be used for setting military pay rates, and therefore the change in pay raises is illegal. Study it out.
 
2013-09-09 09:22:21 AM

imontheinternet: Gotta say, if the president told me that he's cutting my raise in half, and then said he's sending me to Syria to provide air support for al Qaeda, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.

Military personnel are professionals who will do their jobs regardless, but I'd bet morale isn't exactly at an all time high right now.


Of course you know that al Qaeda is only one of the anti-Assad factions, of which there are several.
 
2013-09-09 09:22:42 AM
What happened to starve the beast?  I thought you wanted a govt small enough to drown in a bathtub.
 
2013-09-09 09:23:26 AM

Carl Scroot: Mikey1969: Yep... I heard he dropped a deuce yesterday in the bathroom right off of the Oval Office, within 20 feet of the Resolute Desk!! That disrespectful N---, wait, that lazy-ass Jungle---, um let me try again, that watermelon eating mon---. Ah, Hell, YOU know what I mean, right? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

I guess Obama heeled it down the shower drain, too. He nasty.


Well duh, that is only sexy when Anne Hathaway heels it down.
 
2013-09-09 09:25:06 AM

imontheinternet: Military personnel are professionals who will do their jobs regardless, but I'd bet morale isn't exactly at an all time high right now.


Funny, I would say the same thing describes govt civilians.
 
2013-09-09 09:25:07 AM

Headso: we're gonna have to disagree on that but I'm sure can we agree on the dating secret the liberal media doesn't want you to know about...


oh absolutely. it's no secret that the liberal media is why I'm dateless.
 
2013-09-09 09:25:44 AM

PanicMan: What happened to starve the beast?  I thought you wanted a govt small enough to drown in a bathtub.


It's the rich kid's bathtub from pee wee's big adventure though.
 
2013-09-09 09:26:07 AM

Dimensio: As Mr. Obama is not a legitimate President, due to not being a "natural-born" United States citizen, any recommendation that he makes cannot be used for setting military pay rates, and therefore the change in pay raises is illegal. Study it out.


damn...you're right.

I'm going to go write my congressman.
 
2013-09-09 09:26:34 AM
Newsmax

I stopped reading there.
 
2013-09-09 09:26:52 AM
"President Obama has told Congress he will cap next year's pay raise for U.S. military personnel at 1 percent instead of boosting pay by 1.8 percent as called for by a federal law."

Because not getting as big as raise as expected is so much worse than having a pay cut?

http://www.wral.com/low-pay-forces-nc-teachers-to-choose-between-pro fe ssion-state/12828323/
 
2013-09-09 09:27:19 AM

imontheinternet: Gotta say, if the president told me that he's cutting my raise in half, and then said he's sending me to Syria to provide air support for al Qaeda, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.

Military personnel are professionals who will do their jobs regardless, but I'd bet morale isn't exactly at an all time high right now.


I'm not concerned about the morale of people who voluntarily signed up to murder other people.
 
2013-09-09 09:27:30 AM

log_jammin: Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), calculated that the reduced pay raise could cost an officer with 10 years of service about $52 a month next year


the horror


Republicans will surely get behind this!

images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com
 
2013-09-09 09:27:52 AM

PanicMan: What happened to starve the beast?  I thought you wanted a govt small enough to drown in a bathtub.


They need a massive military to justify their revolution fetish.
 
2013-09-09 09:27:55 AM

imontheinternet: Gotta say, if the president told me that he's cutting my raise in half, and then said he's sending me to Syria to provide air support for al Qaeda, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.


half of them are probably online right now talking about how he spends too much.
 
2013-09-09 09:28:00 AM

Aristocles: I didn't read the article because newsmax, but Obama wants to start an illegal war on Syria, to what "assets" do you refer?


I'm talking about the entire US military here, Sparky, which allows the US to secure all manners of foreign ports, capital, shipping and territory. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs have no use for those assets, so they have no skin in the game.The people who directly benefit from this service provided by the US government should think about ponying up.
 
2013-09-09 09:28:10 AM

LordJiro: imontheinternet: Gotta say, if the president told me that he's cutting my raise in half, and then said he's sending me to Syria to provide air support for al Qaeda, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.

Military personnel are professionals who will do their jobs regardless, but I'd bet morale isn't exactly at an all time high right now.

Of course you know that al Qaeda is only one of the anti-Assad factions, of which there are several.


Islamists control the strongest factions, but yes I'm aware there are secular and moderate factions.  If I was a guy who signed up to fight al Qaeda, I'm not sure the subtleties of the situation would stop me from being pissed off about it.
 
2013-09-09 09:28:41 AM

regindyn: I'm not concerned about the morale of people who voluntarily signed up to murder other people.


What about the other 99.999% of the military?
 
2013-09-09 09:29:09 AM

CPennypacker: If I learned anything from douchebags recently, it was when we were talking about tying cost of living increases for social security to Chained CPI. What I learned was that a reduced increase is not the same as a pay cut. So just be glad you're getting an increase. Is that how it works here too?


A reduced pay increase is exactly the same thing as a tax hike.
 
2013-09-09 09:30:47 AM
What is with this WWIII talk?
 
2013-09-09 09:31:36 AM
Newsmax, subby?  Really?  You couldn't find anyone more credible, say Weekly World News?
 
2013-09-09 09:31:39 AM
Why does Drew allow direct links to some mainstream Republican hate sites like NewsMax, but not other Mainstream Republican hate sites like StormFront.org? Seems kind of inconsistent. I mean, if mainstream Republican hate groups like the Tea Party are allowed a voice here, why not other mainstream Republican hate groups like the Hammerskins?
 
2013-09-09 09:31:51 AM

dennysgod: Obama is acting just like GWBush just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet most of the people who supported Bush back then are against Obama going after Syria today even though their justifications are the same.


And enough of this WWIII shtick, if US bombing some country is your basis we'd be on WWX by now.


What?  The justifications are far from the same.  With Iraq, we had a lot of smoke and mirrors and lies.  With Syria, we have a lot of dead women and children from Sarin gas.
 
2013-09-09 09:31:53 AM

regindyn: imontheinternet: Gotta say, if the president told me that he's cutting my raise in half, and then said he's sending me to Syria to provide air support for al Qaeda, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.

Military personnel are professionals who will do their jobs regardless, but I'd bet morale isn't exactly at an all time high right now.

I'm not concerned about the morale of people who voluntarily signed up to murder other people.


hey guys look! a troll trolled a troll!
 
2013-09-09 09:32:19 AM

Rapmaster2000: What is with this WWIII talk?


It's because Pooty-Poot is all butthurt about us thinking of bombing Syria.
 
2013-09-09 09:33:10 AM

jso2897: Have to keep being the wet blanket here, and pointing out that I am 63 years old, and that this precises process of bullshiat has pretty much been our foreign policy all my life. It's nice to see people finally deciding they don't like it - I've always hated it - on the other hand it's kind of stupidly sad that they think it's "Obama's Foreign Policy", and that's why they can finally be bothered to complain about it.
Still - better late than never.


Oh, don't worry. As soon as a Republican is elected, most people will be all "America! Fark yeah! Let's go kill us some sand n*****s!" again.
 
2013-09-09 09:38:28 AM

Rapmaster2000: What is with this WWIII talk?


It does seem odd. I've never known this president's critics to resort to hyperbole before.
 
2013-09-09 09:39:13 AM

BMulligan: As soon as a Republican is elected, most people will be all "America! Fark yeah! Let's go kill us some sand n*****s socialists!" again.



/ftfy
/Wait, if a Republican is president, maybe conservatives won't feel the need to hide their hate any more.
 
2013-09-09 09:41:37 AM

theorellior: Aristocles: I didn't read the article because newsmax, but Obama wants to start an illegal war on Syria, to what "assets" do you refer?

I'm talking about the entire US military here, Sparky, which allows the US to secure all manners of foreign ports, capital, shipping and territory. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs have no use for those assets, so they have no skin in the game.The people who directly benefit from this service provided by the US government should think about ponying up.


So, you think that the rich should own the U.S. military? Honestly, do you want the 1% using the U.S. military as it sees fit?
The rich aren't going to fund the military out-side of the enormous amount of tax $ they already pay, unless they're in charge.
 
2013-09-09 09:42:20 AM

Rapmaster2000: What is with this WWIII talk?


Seven years ago, WWIII was a republican wet dream, with Generalissimo Bush and Darth Cheney leading us in a glorious crusade against the Musselmen.

Now it's a boogity-boogity scarecrow to trot out because President Toomuchmelanin has said he supports a limited military action against a guy that actually has used WMDs against civilians.
 
2013-09-09 09:43:35 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Rapmaster2000: What is with this WWIII talk?

Seven years ago, WWIII was a republican wet dream, with Generalissimo Bush and Darth Cheney leading us in a glorious crusade against the Musselmen.

Now it's a boogity-boogity scarecrow to trot out because President Toomuchmelanin has said he supports a limited military action against a guy that actually has used WMDs against civilians.


Actually, BOB is advocating regime change.
 
2013-09-09 09:45:30 AM

Aristocles: So, you think that the rich should own the U.S. military?


Awwwww, look at you acting like you think there's a part of the U.S. the rich don't already own! You're too precious!
 
2013-09-09 09:47:35 AM

EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.



DING! DING! DING! DING!  You win +1 internet.
 
2013-09-09 09:47:42 AM

Aristocles: Actually, BOB is advocating regime change.


Where the fark do I click for regime change!?!

microsoft-news.com
 
2013-09-09 09:48:45 AM

AirForceVet: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

Excellent point. Doesn't matter what President Obama does, it's wrong and an impeachable offense.


No you're getting the hang of it.

Is Benghazi a thing yet?
 
2013-09-09 09:50:00 AM
I just hope bombing is the answer.

Worked in Japan.
 
2013-09-09 09:52:13 AM

Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.


And the ships that we have now are orders of magnitude more capable than those ships.
 
2013-09-09 09:52:50 AM

wingnut396: Aristocles: Actually, BOB is advocating regime change.

Where the fark do I click for regime change!?!

[microsoft-news.com image 535x401]


No, silly, it's a reference to the classic Outkast song.
 
2013-09-09 09:54:45 AM
NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.
 
2013-09-09 09:59:14 AM

log_jammin: regindyn: imontheinternet: Gotta say, if the president told me that he's cutting my raise in half, and then said he's sending me to Syria to provide air support for al Qaeda, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.

Military personnel are professionals who will do their jobs regardless, but I'd bet morale isn't exactly at an all time high right now.

I'm not concerned about the morale of people who voluntarily signed up to murder other people.

hey guys look! a troll trolled a troll!


yo dawg
 
2013-09-09 09:59:15 AM

Aristocles: newsmax?


Surprised you're not already on that site as you regurgitate enough of their idiocy.
 
2013-09-09 09:59:30 AM

Aristocles: So, you think that the rich should own the U.S. military? Honestly, do you want the 1% using the U.S. military as it sees fit?


The rich already do this.. the Israeli lobby, the defense lobby, etc..   The US military are essentially glorified mercenaries who get suckered in and paid poorly.
 
2013-09-09 09:59:35 AM

wingnut396: Aristocles: Actually, BOB is advocating regime change.

Where the fark do I click for regime change!?!

[microsoft-news.com image 535x401]


Imagining that GUI on any computer I use almost gave me a panic attack.
 
2013-09-09 09:59:40 AM

Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.


and they believe everything they say.
 
2013-09-09 10:00:44 AM

Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.


And bayonets.
 
2013-09-09 10:01:29 AM

Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.


Oh it has conservative humor. Like this:

What did one liberal say to the other liberal?

"Say, Jerome! It's been a hard day of forcibly converting Christian schoolchildren to the homosatanist agenda! What say we stop by a marihuana dispensary on our way to the abortion clinic for our nightly shift killing white babies for Allah?"
 
2013-09-09 10:02:32 AM
I'm really not an Obama guy, but I have no problem with this.  We spend an enormous amount of money on defense.  Military pay and benefits consume an enormous - and growing - part of the defense budget.  A cut here and there, while political poison, is necessary.
 
2013-09-09 10:03:00 AM

lilplatinum: Aristocles: So, you think that the rich should own the U.S. military? Honestly, do you want the 1% using the U.S. military as it sees fit?

The rich already do this.. the Israeli lobby, the defense lobby, etc..   The US military are essentially glorified mercenaries who get suckered in and paid poorly.


Then why is BoB so much more eager than any lobby to start this illegal war? The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.
 
2013-09-09 10:03:56 AM

Rann Xerox: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

And bayonets.


Did you know that in 1908 the United States had over 50 colliers in service?  Now there are zero.  How can we hope to contain the onslaught of the Kaiser's zeppelins without our collier fleet.  Thanks a lot, Obama.
 
2013-09-09 10:04:31 AM

Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.


If I were going to enter hysterics today, this would be the term to start it.
 
2013-09-09 10:05:29 AM

Aristocles: lilplatinum: Aristocles: So, you think that the rich should own the U.S. military? Honestly, do you want the 1% using the U.S. military as it sees fit?

The rich already do this.. the Israeli lobby, the defense lobby, etc..   The US military are essentially glorified mercenaries who get suckered in and paid poorly.

Then why is BoB so much more eager than any lobby to start this illegal war? The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.


Illegal in what way?
 
2013-09-09 10:06:18 AM

EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.


Obama's sequester?  Yup, that one.
 
2013-09-09 10:06:43 AM

EyeballKid: Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

If I were going to enter hysterics today, this would be the term to start it.


I'm trying to understand the anagram. Unless there was another reason that was all capitalized?
 
2013-09-09 10:08:36 AM

dinch: Aristocles: lilplatinum: Aristocles: So, you think that the rich should own the U.S. military? Honestly, do you want the 1% using the U.S. military as it sees fit?

The rich already do this.. the Israeli lobby, the defense lobby, etc..   The US military are essentially glorified mercenaries who get suckered in and paid poorly.

Then why is BoB so much more eager than any lobby to start this illegal war? The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

Illegal in what way?


In the words of Joe ROBINETTE Biden:

"the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked."
 
2013-09-09 10:08:57 AM

Aristocles: Then why is BoB so much more eager than any lobby to start this illegal war? The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.


Ahh, now we know that you are, in fact, an alt. There's only one other dumbass on here that uses the lame "BOB" designation. I can't quite remember the handle, but I'm sure others will recall it. Thanks for outing yourself.
 
2013-09-09 10:09:05 AM

Aristocles: Then why is BoB so much more eager than any lobby to start this illegal war? The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.


I don't know Bob so I can't speak to his motivations.   Nothing illegal about the war, except maybe international law which has no particular enforcement mechanism, no real certainty, and no real relevance.
 
2013-09-09 10:09:48 AM

Aristocles: dinch: Aristocles: lilplatinum: Aristocles: So, you think that the rich should own the U.S. military? Honestly, do you want the 1% using the U.S. military as it sees fit?

The rich already do this.. the Israeli lobby, the defense lobby, etc..   The US military are essentially glorified mercenaries who get suckered in and paid poorly.

Then why is BoB so much more eager than any lobby to start this illegal war? The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

Illegal in what way?

In the words of Joe ROBINETTE Biden:

"the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked."


Did you miss the fact that congress is voting on this?
 
2013-09-09 10:09:59 AM

dinch: EyeballKid: Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

If I were going to enter hysterics today, this would be the term to start it.

I'm trying to understand the anagram. Unless there was another reason that was all capitalized?


It's capitalized because it's the proper name for the conflict in Syria. Just as the proper name for our current economic woes is "Great Obama Depression."
 
2013-09-09 10:10:25 AM

Aristocles: In the words of Joe ROBINETTE Biden:

"the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked."


Illegal and unconstitutional are two different concepts.   Despite his previous rhetoric, given current laws and case laws, this war would likely be neither.   Stupid, but not illegal.
 
2013-09-09 10:11:03 AM

theorellior: Aristocles: Then why is BoB so much more eager than any lobby to start this illegal war? The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

Ahh, now we know that you are, in fact, an alt.


Incorrect. Brick-house gave me permission to use "BOB."
 
2013-09-09 10:11:13 AM

Aristocles: dinch: EyeballKid: Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

If I were going to enter hysterics today, this would be the term to start it.

I'm trying to understand the anagram. Unless there was another reason that was all capitalized?

It's capitalized because it's the proper name for the conflict in Syria. Just as the proper name for our current economic woes is "Great Obama Depression."


Oh... haha! Hahahahahahaaa!!

Hilarious. I thought you were being serious for a moment. Good one. You got me.
 
2013-09-09 10:12:08 AM
Funny thing is, Great Obama Depression has the anagram of GOD.
 
2013-09-09 10:12:47 AM

Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.


Have we been fighting a lot of naval battles lately?
 
2013-09-09 10:15:09 AM

dinch: Funny thing is, Great Obama Depression has the anagram of GOD.


And they are both non-existent things that stupid people believe in! What a coincidence!
 
2013-09-09 10:22:16 AM

Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.



If the "war" hasn't actually started yet... can we legally call it that?
 
2013-09-09 10:23:58 AM

WhoIsWillo: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

Have we been fighting a lot of naval battles lately?


The United States Navy currently has zero battleships.  How can we hope to maintain our dominance over the dastardly Spaniards without a ready fleet of dreadnoughts?
 
2013-09-09 10:25:23 AM
So, Newsmax is complaining about this as a thing. Where were these farkwits when the invasion forces entering Iraq in 2004 couldn't get what they needed to fight, like body armor, and working weapons? Oh, they glossed over that because Bush? Where were they when Rumsfeld's shiat strategy began to fail almost immediately out of the box? Where were they when others said that Iraq would distract from the mission in Afghanistan and turn both into an extreme shiatshow instead of just a normal one?

Yeah. If these turds finally wised up about dumb wars I could almost respect them. But no. It's all about the scarey black guy in office and not any political objection.

Retards. Retards all of them.
 
2013-09-09 10:25:35 AM

Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.


You know, when you get into work and find the memo about which catchphrases and talking points to use this week, it's best not to use all of them at once.
 
2013-09-09 10:32:12 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.

Oh it has conservative humor. Like this:

What did one liberal say to the other liberal?

"Say, Jerome! It's been a hard day of forcibly converting Christian schoolchildren to the homosatanist agenda! What say we stop by a marihuana dispensary on our way to the abortion clinic for our nightly shift killing white babies for Allah?"


Ha! As if a liberal is going to have a day job, much less a night job. They'd be Conservatives as soon as they saw their first paychecks.
 
2013-09-09 10:35:20 AM
Pay raise?  What's that?
 
2013-09-09 10:35:37 AM

dennysgod: Obama is acting just like GWBush just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet most of the people who supported Bush back then are against Obama going after Syria today even though their justifications are the same.


And those of us who were against the Iraq war in 2003 are also against Syria in 2013.  At least we're consistent.

And enough of this WWIII shtick, if US bombing some country is your basis we'd be on WWX by now.

Agreed.
 
2013-09-09 10:35:57 AM
I don't want a war. I don't want to support a bellicose party.

Or a pro-surveillance state party.

Or a party that puts wealth before principles.

But, hey, at least they're not republicans! Because only wedge social issues matter.
 
2013-09-09 10:36:29 AM

trotsky: So, Newsmax is complaining about this as a thing. Where were these farkwits when the invasion forces entering Iraq in 2004 couldn't get what they needed to fight, like body armor, and working weapons? Oh, they glossed over that because Bush? Where were they when Rumsfeld's shiat strategy began to fail almost immediately out of the box? Where were they when others said that Iraq would distract from the mission in Afghanistan and turn both into an extreme shiatshow instead of just a normal one?


Sounds like someone's not supporting the troops!  You're either with us or against us!
 
2013-09-09 10:40:20 AM

Aristocles: newsmax?


lol
 
2013-09-09 10:44:14 AM

sendtodave: I don't want a war. I don't want to support a bellicose party.

Or a pro-surveillance state party.

Or a party that puts wealth before principles.

But, hey, at least they're not republicans! Because only wedge social issues matter.


so go vote green party and be all smug about it. no one cares what you want.
 
2013-09-09 10:50:43 AM

theorellior: Hey, here's a concept: why don't we raise taxes on the wealthy people who require the US military to secure their assets abroad and give these true patriots in uniform the pay raises they so desperately need?


As a devil's advocate, if the US military is not having recruitment (and retention) problems, then why are raises really necessary?
 
2013-09-09 10:54:08 AM

GanjSmokr: FTFA:  Obama wrote to congressional leaders: "I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members, who have made such great contributions to our nation over the past decade of war. As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our nation on a sustainable fiscal course."

From about a year ago (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/21/letter-preside nt -regarding-alternative-plan-pay-increases-civilian-feder):  Civilian Federal employees have already made significant sacrifices as a result of a two year pay freeze.  As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course.  This is an effort that continues to require tough choices and each of us to do our fair share.

Oddly similar?


OMG! Impeach him!
 
2013-09-09 10:54:40 AM

theorellior: Aristocles: I didn't read the article because newsmax, but Obama wants to start an illegal war on Syria, to what "assets" do you refer?

I'm talking about the entire US military here, Sparky, which allows the US to secure all manners of foreign ports, capital, shipping and territory. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs have no use for those assets, so they have no skin in the game.The people who directly benefit from this service provided by the US government should think about ponying up.


Wanna know who the biggest welfare queens in the US are? Oil companies. So, don't tell me they have no skin in the game.
 
2013-09-09 10:54:55 AM

EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.


If we go to war again wouldn't the military be exempt from the sequestration?

A Mediterranean port, supporting our puppets the Saudis, and getting out from under sequestration? A win-win if I ever heard of one. No wonder he's giving a speech.

/bitter
/sick of war
 
2013-09-09 10:56:31 AM

Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.



upload.wikimedia.org
Our new President
 
2013-09-09 10:58:06 AM

Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.


Fell for it how? The idea was to make the consequences of Congress not doing it's job so unappealing to both sides that they would be forced to do their job. Nobody intended for the sequestration to happen. The only thing Obama can be blamed for is underestimating how big a bunch of incompetent idiots  Congess is.
 
2013-09-09 10:58:21 AM
img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-09 11:00:51 AM
Aristocles: The facts surrounding Obama's Illegal War on Syria to not fit with your preconception.

Not illegal.  Not a war.  But hey, you got the Syria part right.
Bless your heart.
 
2013-09-09 11:01:37 AM
Maybe they should cut you know at the top .....why the f*ck do generals need to live in Mansions?  They should be on bases with their troops?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-mansio ns -20130721,0,295607,full.story
 
2013-09-09 11:02:22 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: [img196.imageshack.us image 640x823]


Yeah, because that's the way budgeting works.  Sure.
 
2013-09-09 11:05:39 AM
Losemax is for the Teatards who find Merkin Stinker too intellectually challenging.
 
2013-09-09 11:08:14 AM
Very first Monday morning article, and it's an Opposite Day headline with a Newsmax link... so it's going to be that kind of week, eh? Great...
 
2013-09-09 11:09:14 AM

give me doughnuts: Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.



Our new President


If only. Then I would finally receive the slack which I crave and deserve.
 
2013-09-09 11:10:56 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?


To be fair, that's also what Democrats call a "cut" when it's to a program they like.
 
2013-09-09 11:12:18 AM

GoldSpider: CPT Ethanolic: Cutting military pay raises in half???  OMG, you mean I might get $20 more/month vs $40?  How will I live?

To be fair, that's also what Democrats call a "cut" when it's to a program they like.


There is no substance to this statement at all.
 
2013-09-09 11:14:02 AM

kregh99: Newsmax

I stopped reading there.


Since the majority of sites linked here on Fark that start with the symbol for Neon are troll sites, you should just stop reading at Ne-.
 
2013-09-09 11:19:06 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: I don't want a war. I don't want to support a bellicose party.

Or a pro-surveillance state party.

Or a party that puts wealth before principles.

But, hey, at least they're not republicans! Because only wedge social issues matter.

so go vote green party and be all smug about it. no one cares what you want.


Really? Because polls say that most Americans don't want war, either. Or to be snooped on. Or that only money talks.

So, maybe the parties don't, maybe stooges for the parties don't but the people sure seem to care precisely about those things.

Also, the jerk store called.
 
2013-09-09 11:19:11 AM
I wish that the right's objection to foreign adventures would last longer than a couple of nanoseconds after a Republican is in the White House.  I also wish that they could learn to understand that imaginary means "not real" and actual means "real," instead of the other way around.  WMDs, for example.  But FW:FW:FW:FW:FW, I guess.
 
2013-09-09 11:22:39 AM

sendtodave: Really?


really.
 
2013-09-09 11:23:35 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: Really?

really.


Jerk. Store.
 
2013-09-09 11:26:20 AM

sendtodave: Jerk. Store.


I've tried talking to you reasonably in the past. the moment you get called on something you run away. so what's the point?

we get it, the dems are bad. just almost as bad as the republicans. and you're just so tired of it. fine. good. like I said, just go vote green party, and have fun with it.
 
2013-09-09 11:26:46 AM

Kibbler: I wish that the right's objection to foreign adventures would last longer than a couple of nanoseconds after a Republican is in the White House.  I also wish that they could learn to understand that imaginary means "not real" and actual means "real," instead of the other way around.  WMDs, for example.  But FW:FW:FW:FW:FW, I guess.


I don't necessarily want to assume the worst, buuuut... I'm almost certain that the moment a Republican is back in power, war is back on the Menu.
 
2013-09-09 11:30:11 AM

Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.


That's true, but missing context.  The sequester was meant to be so onerous that it would force meaningful negotiation.  Everybody at the time agreed this was the case, but the republicans decided that it wasn't so bad and Obama.  Responsibility for the sequester rests squarely on the shoulders of the GOP.
 
2013-09-09 11:33:31 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: Jerk. Store.

I've tried talking to you reasonably in the past. the moment you get called on something you run away. so what's the point?

we get it, the dems are bad. just almost as bad as the republicans. and you're just so tired of it. fine. good. like I said, just go vote green party, and have fun with it.


Run away? Wat.

I'm more interested in figuring out why these guys still get any support from the left than I am in throwing away a single vote.
 
2013-09-09 11:34:53 AM

LasersHurt: Kibbler: I wish that the right's objection to foreign adventures would last longer than a couple of nanoseconds after a Republican is in the White House.  I also wish that they could learn to understand that imaginary means "not real" and actual means "real," instead of the other way around.  WMDs, for example.  But FW:FW:FW:FW:FW, I guess.

I don't necessarily want to assume the worst, buuuut... I'm almost certain that the moment a Republican is back in power, war is back on the Menu.


Also back on the menu when Reps get back in power:

Debt doesn't matter
Respect the office not matter if you disagree
You've nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide...
 
2013-09-09 11:35:16 AM
I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on most things and think he's in a better position than any of us to know what's good for the country, but he can flat out suck my dick for cutting pay raises for the troops, especially considering all the other wasteful shiat he turns a blind eye to. fark you, Mr President.
 
2013-09-09 11:37:49 AM

freak7: I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on most things and think he's in a better position than any of us to know what's good for the country, but he can flat out suck my dick for cutting pay raises for the troops, especially considering all the other wasteful shiat he turns a blind eye to. fark you, Mr President.


Congratulations.
 
2013-09-09 11:43:05 AM

jcooli09: Brick-House: Carl Scroot: EvilEgg: Strangely the article never mentioned the Congress mandated sequestration.

I was gonna say....

I just want to point out that it was BOB that first thought of seuuestration. But congress being the idiots they are, fell for it. Blind leading the blind.

That's true, but missing context.   The sequester was meant to be so onerous that it would force meaningful negotiation.  Everybody at the time agreed this was the case, but the republicans decided that it wasn't so bad and Obama.  Responsibility for the sequester rests squarely on the shoulders of the GOP.


...and this is where the whole cunning plan fell apart. We (meaning people with functional cerebra) already knew we were dealing with people who were willing to blow up the nation's creditworthiness in their pursuit of power. There was absolutely no reason to think that there was anything -  anything - that could force these people to relinquish their perceived advantage.
 
2013-09-09 11:44:17 AM

sendtodave: throwing away a single vote.


throwing away a vote?? but they're just like the republicans!
 
2013-09-09 11:47:10 AM

Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.


Actually they have a humorless "satire" site called The Peoples Cube, which sells winning apparel like this

tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com


So you know they're gonna be hilarious.
 
2013-09-09 11:47:53 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: throwing away a single vote.

throwing away a vote?? but they're just like the republicans!


Can I has left wing tea party plz? Democratic schism? Party that has to listen to its wing?
 
2013-09-09 11:48:46 AM

sendtodave: Can I has left wing tea party plz? Democratic schism? Party that has to listen to its wing?


like i said. vote green and be as smug as you want to about it.
 
2013-09-09 11:52:14 AM

log_jammin: sendtodave: Can I has left wing tea party plz? Democratic schism? Party that has to listen to its wing?

like i said. vote green and be as smug as you want to about it.


So, that's a no to democrats becoming more left wing, right?
 
2013-09-09 11:55:05 AM

ad_rizzle: Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.

Actually they have a humorless "satire" site called The Peoples Cube, which sells winning apparel like this

[tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com image 600x306]


So you know they're gonna be hilarious.


Actually, I like these. Makes it easier to avoid ignorant paranoid idiots that way.
 
2013-09-09 11:57:38 AM

advex101: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

And the ships that we have now are orders of magnitude more capable than those ships.


Quantity still matters, though. There's a reason we had to send destroyers through Suez. Our ships don't cover the same ground.
 
2013-09-09 11:58:34 AM
Wait...I thought these people were against pay raises for government workers.

Now, they're for them?

Will anyone explain?
 
2013-09-09 12:00:18 PM

sendtodave: So, that's a no to democrats becoming more left wing, right?


last I checked I wasn't in control of the democratic party, and you weren't in charge of defining what is or isn't "left wing".
 
2013-09-09 12:03:48 PM

ad_rizzle: Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.

Actually they have a humorless "satire" site called The Peoples Cube, which sells winning apparel like this

[tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com image 600x306]


So you know they're gonna be hilarious.


Somewhere there's a modelling agency that specializes in providing people who look like total douches.
 
2013-09-09 12:08:27 PM

vygramul: Quantity still matters, though. There's a reason we had to send destroyers through Suez. Our ships don't cover the same ground.


That's more of an airspace issue. We could strike on Damascus from inside the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea.
 
2013-09-09 12:11:09 PM

BMulligan: ad_rizzle: Cuchulane: NewsMax - the conservative Onion without the humor.

Actually they have a humorless "satire" site called The Peoples Cube, which sells winning apparel like this

[tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com image 600x306]


So you know they're gonna be hilarious.

Somewhere there's a modelling agency that specializes in providing people who look like total douches.


Really?  I could use a second job.
 
2013-09-09 12:14:47 PM

eraser8: Wait...I thought these people were against pay raises for government workers.

Now, they're for them?

Will anyone explain?


I think they're trying to keep the guys with the guns and camo happy, but I can hardly tell anymore. Or maybe a Democrat brought it up and all the Republicans are freaking out. Some days, just hard to tell.
 
2013-09-09 12:16:30 PM

eraser8: Wait...I thought these people were against pay raises for government workers.

Now, they're for them?

Will anyone explain?


Liberals object to money being spent to hurt people.

Conservatives object to money being spent to help people.
 
2013-09-09 12:17:14 PM
BMulligan:

...and this is where the whole cunning plan fell apart. We (meaning people with functional cerebra) already knew we were dealing with people who were willing to blow up the nation's creditworthiness in their pursuit of power. There was absolutely no reason to think that there was anything -  anything - that could force these people to relinquish their perceived advantage.

I concede your point, Obama did try to hard to work with the GOP.  Still, the stakes were high and giving in to them would have likely been worse, they'd have moved the goalposts as soon as he acquiesced.
 
2013-09-09 12:21:22 PM

vygramul: eraser8: Wait...I thought these people were against pay raises for government workers.

Now, they're for them?

Will anyone explain?

Liberals object to money being spent to hurt people.

Conservatives object to money being spent to help people.


I like that.
 
2013-09-09 12:23:27 PM

incendi: vygramul: Quantity still matters, though. There's a reason we had to send destroyers through Suez. Our ships don't cover the same ground.

That's more of an airspace issue. We could strike on Damascus from inside the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea.


Even were airspace an issue (the Saudis and Israelis are publicly behind strikes, so there's no reason to think we couldn't use their airspace), that's not the only reason to do that.
 
2013-09-09 12:47:15 PM
THANKS, OBOMBA
 
2013-09-09 12:48:03 PM

log_jammin: Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), calculated that the reduced pay raise could cost an officer with 10 years of service about $52 a month next year


the horror


"Cost an officer"?  As in...something that they will need to pay more for?

Also, $52/month to a 10-yr officer is vaguely akin to that Wall Street Journal graphic about the terrible impacts to a single mother making $300k/year.
 
2013-09-09 12:48:52 PM

vygramul: Even were airspace an issue (the Saudis and Israelis are publicly behind strikes, so there's no reason to think we couldn't use their airspace), that's not the only reason to do that.


Well, sure. It's more convenient, cheaper, allows more extensive use of shorter range weapons, and of course, there's the "hey, we're right farkin' here, don't try any shiat" effect of having the US Navy on your doorstep, but we could still utterly wreck them even if Egypt said "fark you guys, take the long way around." We didn't  have to send destroyers through the Suez. The point being, even with a lower number of ships, we're still covering the hot parts of the world pretty damned well.

And, while it's a fair point that Israel would almost certainly allow us to conduct a strike through their air, I'm not real keen on the possibility of retaliatory fire coming back over the nuclear elephant in the room.
 
2013-09-09 12:50:03 PM

log_jammin: sendtodave: So, that's a no to democrats becoming more left wing, right?

last I checked I wasn't in control of the democratic party, and you weren't in charge of defining what is or isn't "left wing".


Who is allowed to define such things?

"I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it." -- Paul Krugman

That's a good start. It means that putting the rich first, and big brother surveillance is right out.

We can debate over pacifism, but I feel liberalism is, and should be more dove than hawk.
 
2013-09-09 01:10:23 PM

incendi: vygramul: Even were airspace an issue (the Saudis and Israelis are publicly behind strikes, so there's no reason to think we couldn't use their airspace), that's not the only reason to do that.

Well, sure. It's more convenient, cheaper, allows more extensive use of shorter range weapons, and of course, there's the "hey, we're right farkin' here, don't try any shiat" effect of having the US Navy on your doorstep, but we could still utterly wreck them even if Egypt said "fark you guys, take the long way around." We didn't  have to send destroyers through the Suez. The point being, even with a lower number of ships, we're still covering the hot parts of the world pretty damned well.

And, while it's a fair point that Israel would almost certainly allow us to conduct a strike through their air, I'm not real keen on the possibility of retaliatory fire coming back over the nuclear elephant in the room.


Israel weathered Saddam's retaliatory SCUDs, and Syria is less capable.
 
2013-09-09 01:18:15 PM

Carl Scroot: Mikey1969: Yep... I heard he dropped a deuce yesterday in the bathroom right off of the Oval Office, within 20 feet of the Resolute Desk!! That disrespectful N---, wait, that lazy-ass Jungle---, um let me try again, that watermelon eating mon---. Ah, Hell, YOU know what I mean, right? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

I guess Obama heeled it down the shower drain, too. He nasty.


We call that Waffle Stomping in the Core.
 
2013-09-09 01:33:47 PM

sendtodave: vygramul: eraser8: Wait...I thought these people were against pay raises for government workers.

Now, they're for them?

Will anyone explain?

Liberals object to money being spent to hurt people.

Conservatives object to money being spent to help people.

I like that.

I don't, but I guess I have a personal stake in it.

/Keep your gubmint outta my military paycheck
//Don't take mah jerrrb
 
2013-09-09 01:37:20 PM

WippitGuud: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

One Nimitz-class aircraft carrier wins WW1 by itself. Your argument is invalid.


I think it might need the whole carrier group.  Otherwise, yes.  Without even trying too hard.
 
2013-09-09 01:38:26 PM
62% of our federal budget goes to the military.

I don't think we should punish our troops, but if they want raises, they should be getting them from those who most profit off of their work - defense contractors.

/I cannot wait for my boss to piss and moan about this shiat
 
2013-09-09 01:42:21 PM
Not clicking newsmax.
 
2013-09-09 01:46:23 PM

Rapmaster2000: WhoIsWillo: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

Have we been fighting a lot of naval battles lately?

The United States Navy currently has zero battleships.  How can we hope to maintain our dominance over the dastardly Spaniards without a ready fleet of dreadnoughts?


The Spanish American War was fought in 1898. The HMS Dreadnaught, the world's first oil turbine all big gun battleship, was not completed until 1906.

Also a fun fact, for starting a Naval arms race and completely changing the face of naval surface warfare, Dreadnaught sank one and only one vessel. A submarine. By ramming her.
 
2013-09-09 01:46:30 PM

chuggernaught: WippitGuud: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

One Nimitz-class aircraft carrier wins WW1 by itself. Your argument is invalid.

I think it might need the whole carrier group.  Otherwise, yes.  Without even trying too hard.


Neither of you are guys who talk about how Iranian pleasure craft sank thousands of American carriers in an exercise in the Persian Gulf, are you?
 
2013-09-09 01:47:14 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: Rapmaster2000: WhoIsWillo: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

Have we been fighting a lot of naval battles lately?

The United States Navy currently has zero battleships.  How can we hope to maintain our dominance over the dastardly Spaniards without a ready fleet of dreadnoughts?

The Spanish American War was fought in 1898. The HMS Dreadnaught, the world's first oil turbine all big gun battleship, was not completed until 1906.

Also a fun fact, for starting a Naval arms race and completely changing the face of naval surface warfare, Dreadnaught sank one and only one vessel. A submarine. By ramming her.


Not that battleships wouldn't be useful - just not worth the money.
 
2013-09-09 01:51:00 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: 62% of our federal budget goes to the military.

I don't think we should punish our troops, but if they want raises, they should be getting them from those who most profit off of their work - defense contractors.

/I cannot wait for my boss to piss and moan about this shiat


Why does 62% of our budget go to the military?
 
2013-09-09 01:58:38 PM

sendtodave: Why does 62% of our budget go to the military?


61% just wasn't cuttin' it, and 63% would just be ridiculous.
 
2013-09-09 02:02:11 PM

sendtodave: Snatch Bandergrip: 62% of our federal budget goes to the military.

I don't think we should punish our troops, but if they want raises, they should be getting them from those who most profit off of their work - defense contractors.

/I cannot wait for my boss to piss and moan about this shiat

Why does 62% of our budget go to the military?


Because we maintain two-MTW capability and it's getting more expensive, not less, to do so.
 
2013-09-09 02:24:36 PM

daveUSMC: Carl Scroot: Mikey1969: Yep... I heard he dropped a deuce yesterday in the bathroom right off of the Oval Office, within 20 feet of the Resolute Desk!! That disrespectful N---, wait, that lazy-ass Jungle---, um let me try again, that watermelon eating mon---. Ah, Hell, YOU know what I mean, right? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

I guess Obama heeled it down the shower drain, too. He nasty.

We call that Waffle Stomping in the Core.


FLY NAVY
 
2013-09-09 02:26:55 PM

Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.


it also has much bigger and more powerful ships. also aircraft, long range missiles,more subs etc
 
2013-09-09 02:29:32 PM
Carter. He kept military pay low too. Guess what happened then. Record lows in enlistment and retention, people in uniform on food stamps and in some cases collecting welfare as well. It's one of the reasons that Reagan won the election and how you avoid a draft. One of the main rules in governing is that you always take care of your military, that includes paying them at a reasonable and fair rate.
 
2013-09-09 02:34:42 PM

Hobodeluxe: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

it also has much bigger and more powerful ships. also aircraft, long range missiles,more subs etc


Probably has fewer subs, too.

The modern navy is more capable in everything except coverage. Which, of course, matters.
 
2013-09-09 02:45:58 PM

vygramul: Hobodeluxe: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

it also has much bigger and more powerful ships. also aircraft, long range missiles,more subs etc

Probably has fewer subs, too.

The modern navy is more capable in everything except coverage. Which, of course, matters.


Coverage? WWI warships were limited to line of sight. With the advent of radar and aerial reconnaissance, a modern carrier group has an effective range of over 1000 nautical miles.  One carrier group could monitor (and does monitor today) the entire North Atlantic.
 
2013-09-09 02:50:56 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: vygramul: Hobodeluxe: Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.

it also has much bigger and more powerful ships. also aircraft, long range missiles,more subs etc

Probably has fewer subs, too.

The modern navy is more capable in everything except coverage. Which, of course, matters.

Coverage? WWI warships were limited to line of sight. With the advent of radar and aerial reconnaissance, a modern carrier group has an effective range of over 1000 nautical miles.  One carrier group could monitor (and does monitor today) the entire North Atlantic.


Actually, WWI saw aerial recon, too - just no radios. And the enemy was far more visible back then. The Germans fled from the Falklands while some British ships had their engines taken apart. But the time the Brits were underway, the smoke of the German fleet could still be seen over the horizon. So they weren't exactly limited to 12 mile horizons.

But that being said - the ocean and coasts are a really, really big place. We do not have the same amount of coverage. Period.
 
2013-09-09 02:52:01 PM

Radioactive Ass: people in uniform on food stamps and in some cases collecting welfare as well.


While I was in, under  G.W. Bush, low-ranking enlisted folks with families qualified for assistance, or so I heard. It was pushed fairly aggressively while I was at training commands.
 
2013-09-09 02:56:28 PM

vygramul: But that being said - the ocean and coasts are a really, really big place. We do not have the same amount of coverage. Period.


If only we could have advanced our technology since WWI.....if only.
 
2013-09-09 02:58:46 PM

JusticeandIndependence: If only we could have advanced our technology since WWI.....if only.


It'd be really pretty neat if we could put some sort of "eye-in-the-sky" that could see monitor large areas and feed intel back in real time, but that's just fantasy.
 
2013-09-09 03:05:38 PM

incendi: While I was in, under G.W. Bush, low-ranking enlisted folks with families qualified for assistance, or so I heard. It was pushed fairly aggressively while I was at training commands.


It was much worse under Carter. Inflation at 18% will do that. Reagan had to boost pay by almost 25% to get the pay back up to speed. I went in in 1982 so I knew guys who were in while Carter was still president. To a man they all hated him and his treatment of them regarding pay. It's one of the reasons why the military tends to vote republican by a large percentage.

The people I was talking about weren't E1 through E3 with families, it was up to E6 with families. These guys had navy housing and sea and sub pay and still qualified for government assistance. That should never happen unless they are at the Duggars level of kids to take care of.
 
2013-09-09 03:17:04 PM

Radioactive Ass: incendi: While I was in, under G.W. Bush, low-ranking enlisted folks with families qualified for assistance, or so I heard. It was pushed fairly aggressively while I was at training commands.

It was much worse under Carter. Inflation at 18% will do that. Reagan had to boost pay by almost 25% to get the pay back up to speed. I went in in 1982 so I knew guys who were in while Carter was still president. To a man they all hated him and his treatment of them regarding pay. It's one of the reasons why the military tends to vote republican by a large percentage.

The people I was talking about weren't E1 through E3 with families, it was up to E6 with families. These guys had navy housing and sea and sub pay and still qualified for government assistance. That should never happen unless they are at the Duggars level of kids to take care of.


Damn, that is pretty bad. The direct memories are all gone at this point, but there's definitely still a lingering notion of "Republicans are better for the military than Democrats" that nobody really seems to ever justify with regards to people actually currently in office.
 
2013-09-09 03:26:04 PM

JusticeandIndependence: vygramul: But that being said - the ocean and coasts are a really, really big place. We do not have the same amount of coverage. Period.

If only we could have advanced our technology since WWI.....if only.


We haven't gotten out tech to the point we can be two places at once. When we do, then we'll have the same coverage.
 
2013-09-09 03:26:48 PM
I thought budgetary matters, including monies allotted for raises, were under the control of congress.
 
2013-09-09 03:26:54 PM

incendi: JusticeandIndependence: If only we could have advanced our technology since WWI.....if only.

It'd be really pretty neat if we could put some sort of "eye-in-the-sky" that could see monitor large areas and feed intel back in real time, but that's just fantasy.


...and that's why there aren't any more pirates, because as soon as one shows up, WHAMMO! Tomahawk.
 
2013-09-09 03:27:33 PM

Radioactive Ass: incendi: While I was in, under G.W. Bush, low-ranking enlisted folks with families qualified for assistance, or so I heard. It was pushed fairly aggressively while I was at training commands.

It was much worse under Carter. Inflation at 18% will do that. Reagan had to boost pay by almost 25% to get the pay back up to speed. I went in in 1982 so I knew guys who were in while Carter was still president. To a man they all hated him and his treatment of them regarding pay. It's one of the reasons why the military tends to vote republican by a large percentage.

The people I was talking about weren't E1 through E3 with families, it was up to E6 with families. These guys had navy housing and sea and sub pay and still qualified for government assistance. That should never happen unless they are at the Duggars level of kids to take care of.


For some reason, Congress never had a problem keeping up with inflation.
 
2013-09-09 03:35:04 PM

incendi: Radioactive Ass: incendi: While I was in, under G.W. Bush, low-ranking enlisted folks with families qualified for assistance, or so I heard. It was pushed fairly aggressively while I was at training commands.

It was much worse under Carter. Inflation at 18% will do that. Reagan had to boost pay by almost 25% to get the pay back up to speed. I went in in 1982 so I knew guys who were in while Carter was still president. To a man they all hated him and his treatment of them regarding pay. It's one of the reasons why the military tends to vote republican by a large percentage.

The people I was talking about weren't E1 through E3 with families, it was up to E6 with families. These guys had navy housing and sea and sub pay and still qualified for government assistance. That should never happen unless they are at the Duggars level of kids to take care of.

Damn, that is pretty bad. The direct memories are all gone at this point, but there's definitely still a lingering notion of "Republicans are better for the military than Democrats" that nobody really seems to ever justify with regards to people actually currently in office.


Like how John McCain wanted to cut the GI Bill?
 
2013-09-09 04:05:18 PM

incendi: Damn, that is pretty bad. The direct memories are all gone at this point, but there's definitely still a lingering notion of "Republicans are better for the military than Democrats" that nobody really seems to ever justify with regards to people actually currently in office.


Yeah, it was bad. I had an LPO who lived in a trailer park because of the pay levels. An E6 with two kids being forced to resort to living in a trailer on food stamps is unconscionable. We already pay our men and women a fairly low amount as it is, most do it for the training and stability along with a sense of duty but we cannot exploit that or we risk losing them. We've already cut back on the education benefits, cutting back pay only helps tip the balance amongst the ranks against voting (D) even more.
 
2013-09-09 05:05:06 PM

log_jammin: Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), calculated that the reduced pay raise could cost an officer with 10 years of service about $52 a month next year


the horror


Holy shiat. Colonials with less than a decade experience can pull in over $110,00 a year, with $65,000 being the lower end. Now that...that MONSTER...is only increasing their pay by $624 instead of $1250 like they usually get! WHAR PATRIOTIC OBUMMER? WHAR?
 
2013-09-09 05:08:24 PM

Muta: The navy has fewer ships than it did during WWI.


Short, sweet, ignorant without a whiff of irony, with no corroborating information to attack. And I see you got a couple of bites. Welcome to fark! Your complementary bridge is right here in the politics tab.
 
2013-09-09 05:38:59 PM

wingnut396: Aristocles: Actually, BOB is advocating regime change.

Where the fark do I click for regime change!?!

[microsoft-news.com image 535x401]


AAAAHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGG NO!  Are you serious? I had hoped to never see that ever again.

Did Packard Bell support in 95.  I got written up for helping a women modify her config.sys and autoexc.bat files to get Doom to run on xmas eve so it would be set up for her kid in the morning, because we were ONLY allowed to run memmaker or set shiat back to factory - those were the orders. Pretty much because they had hold times of an hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  

My machine locks up.
Do you have your recovery cd.Put it in the drive. Now type fdisk..blah blah..ok reboot.
Go through setup... "I just got a blue screen with a bunch of stuff on it"... ummm what's the serial number on that disk...  Sorry that one doesn't work. I have to send you a new one.

I just got this home and I don't get anything on the screen.
{trouble shoot}
Oh that's a PB440 correct? Yeah they shipped the ram switched. The ecc ram is in bank one and the standard is in zero, but ecc has to be in zero...  I know you don't know what that means, that's ok, now go get a screw driver...
Have you ever tried to talk an old women through taking out dimms - just put a bullet in me please. I was good at it though, probably since I had to do it so much.

/why didn't you just take it back to k-mart?
//weren't allowed to say them that
 
2013-09-09 05:43:48 PM

Dedmon: Holy shiat. Colonials with less than a decade experience can pull in over $110,00 a year, with $65,000 being the lower end. Now that...that MONSTER...is only increasing their pay by $624 instead of $1250 like they usually get! WHAR PATRIOTIC OBUMMER? WHAR?


There are no O6's with less than 10 years experience. The pay charts may have them on there just to cover all of the bases but in reality that just doesn't happen. 10 years is O4 pay grade level at best. O6 is more in the 20 year-ish range.
 
2013-09-09 07:34:36 PM

Radioactive Ass: Dedmon: Holy shiat. Colonials with less than a decade experience can pull in over $110,00 a year, with $65,000 being the lower end. Now that...that MONSTER...is only increasing their pay by $624 instead of $1250 like they usually get! WHAR PATRIOTIC OBUMMER? WHAR?

There are no O6's with less than 10 years experience. The pay charts may have them on there just to cover all of the bases but in reality that just doesn't happen. 10 years is O4 pay grade level at best. O6 is more in the 20 year-ish range.


O6 in under 10 years would be... special.
 
2013-09-09 07:50:24 PM

vygramul: O6 in under 10 years would be... special.


I get the feeling that the last time that happened was in WW2 and it was a battlefield promotion type of situation and that it was more of a frocking than anything else.
 
2013-09-09 09:53:53 PM

vygramul: Radioactive Ass: Dedmon: Holy shiat. Colonials with less than a decade experience can pull in over $110,00 a year, with $65,000 being the lower end. Now that...that MONSTER...is only increasing their pay by $624 instead of $1250 like they usually get! WHAR PATRIOTIC OBUMMER? WHAR?

There are no O6's with less than 10 years experience. The pay charts may have them on there just to cover all of the bases but in reality that just doesn't happen. 10 years is O4 pay grade level at best. O6 is more in the 20 year-ish range.

O6 in under 10 years would be... special.


Which brings up the question..why do we pronounce it as kurnal?
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report