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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 46 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report