Once Again Bush Says Civilians Worth 1.5%, Military 3.5% (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020204d1.htm)

Yes, well, it would be interesting to compare the pay of enlisted military personnel vs. civil service, now wouldn't it?

2004 Civil Service Pay Scale (http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/html/gs.asp) - lowest ranking GS is $15,000 yr.

Military Active Duty Pay Scale (http://www.dod.mil/militarypay/pay/bp/paytables/Jan2004.html) - lowest ranking enlisted is $13,000 yr.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Yes, well, it would be interesting to compare the pay of enlisted military personnel vs. civil service, now wouldn't it?

2004 Civil Service Pay Scale (http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/html/gs.asp) - lowest ranking GS is $15,000 yr.

Military Active Duty Pay Scale (http://www.dod.mil/militarypay/pay/bp/paytables/Jan2004.html) - lowest ranking enlisted is $13,000 yr.
You're the best:cheers:

Originally posted by TripleJ
You're the best With a linked source, no less. :cool:

Wow Vrai, I wish I got my meals, medical, house, and clothes for free. Just like those poor military types.

I agree with jbslasher - just about all my money goes to expenses that are freely given to the military. However, I'd rather pay for those than pay with my life if called upon - if that makes any sense.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Wow Vrai, I wish I got my meals, medical, house, and clothes for free, got sent to miserable stinking holes like Adak, Sigonella, Somolia and Iraq where people shoot at you and booby trap busses and stuff to try and kill you, deployed on a ship or to a tent city for months at a time only to come home for a few weeks and go again. Just like those poor military types. :yeahthat: :duh:

Originally posted by jlabsher
Wow Vrai, I wish I got my meals, medical, house, and clothes for free. Just like those poor military types.

I find that comment beyond repulsive, sounds like a "let them eat cake" attitude.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Wow Vrai, I wish I got my meals, medical, house, and clothes for free. Just like those poor military types. For your information, military personnel DON'T get free meals once they're out of basic training. There is a cost to eat at the mess hall, at least there was when my ex-husband was in the Army.

You also don't get a free house. You get barracks or base housing if you have a family. Otherwise you get a housing allowance that usually isn't even remotely close to what you'll have to pay for rent.

You also don't get free clothing. You get a yearly uniform allowance.

The medical you get is comparable to what you'd get as a bennie at a decent corporation.

Originally posted by dems4me
I agree with jbslasher - just about all my money goes to expenses that are freely given to the military. However, I'd rather pay for those than pay with my life if called upon - if that makes any sense. Makes perfect sense, you wouldn't serve to protect your own liberty but you will pay others to do it for you.

Originally posted by Pete
Makes perfect sense, you wouldn't serve to protect your own liberty but you will pay others to do it for you.

No, I don't want the decision of my life to be in anyone else's hands but my own. If people want to put me in the line of fire because they feel the sky is red and not blue, then no I don't want to risk my life for something petty. I am and always have been a Christian first and an American second.

Originally posted by dems4me
No, I don't want the decision of my life to be in anyone else's hands but my own. If people want to put me in the line of fire because they feel the sky is red and not blue, then no I don't want to risk my life for something petty. I am and always have been a Christian first and an American second. Makes perfect sense, you love to enjoy the fruits of others labor and sacrafice, thats what makes you a liberal. I understand. Actually you sound like a conservative there for a minute with all that "I want to let others make decisions for me, I want to do it myself" thing. :confused:

Originally posted by Pete
Makes perfect sense, you wouldn't serve to protect your own liberty but you will pay others to do it for you.

Like our commander in chief?

Originally posted by jlabsher
Like our commander in chief? and the one before that too.

Originally posted by Pete
and the one before that too.

Ughhh - not again:banghead: with you.

People choose to be in the military, its an income and you get training and help with college funding and tuition. Some people go that route, others CHOOOSE not to. If people want to join the military - so be it if they don't so be it. It doesn't mean that one person or the other is a better person. I don't mind dying for a cause, but a futile war is not one of them. If we are attacked, say like 9/11 then most definately I'd like to fight to protect america - in the meantime, that was almost 4 years ago and we still don't have sadamm. some people spend their lives saving people such as rescue workers and other people in the medical profession. It does not mean they are a bad person because they didn't sign up for the armed services.

Originally posted by Pete
and the one before that too.

:notworthy

oops I meant we don't have osama - not saddamm:blushing:

Originally posted by dems4me
Ughhh - not again:banghead: with you.

People choose to be in the military, its an income and you get training and help with college funding and tuition. Some people go that route, others CHOOOSE not to. If people want to join the military - so be it if they don't so be it. It doesn't mean that one person or the other is a better person. I don't mind dying for a cause, but a futile war is not one of them. If we are attacked, say like 9/11 then most definately I'd like to fight to protect america - in the meantime, that was almost 4 years ago and we still don't have sadamm. some people spend their lives saving people such as rescue workers and other people in the medical profession. It does not mean they are a bad person because they didn't sign up for the armed services. True........BTW, if they had to instute a draft and you got drafted what road would you take to Canada? Route 1 through Maine or over through NY at Niagra?

Well in the "real" navy (ships you know) meals are free onboard the ship. If you are on shore duty (and Army, AF, & the rest) you get a monthly tax-free meals allowance in your paycheck, then you go to the chow hall to eat and pay for it. On the ship, you don't get that tax free allowance.

If you live in base housing (remember the spouse didn't come with the seabag sailor, getting married was your choice) the only bill you have is cable & telephone, keep the heat at 80 and the A/C at 60, run the lights all the time. If you live off base your BAH is tax-free, so if you're an E-1 (not many of them) that is $1020 @ month in pax or another $12.2K tax free a year.

For your meals you get $8.10 a day or $250 @ month, or about $3K a year tax free.

Medical, hmmm $250 a month average insurance. Another 3K a year.

That equals $18.2K a year tax free on those 3 benefits. At the 18% rate that equals about $21500 at the taxable rate. So the poor married E-1 who earns $13 K actually gets about $34500.

Originally posted by jlabsher
getting married was your choice

Pretty much like deciding to join the military or just take a govt. job, right? :shrug:

Originally posted by Pete
True........BTW, if they had to instute a draft and you got drafted what road would you take to Canada? Route 1 through Maine or over through NY at Niagra?


Why do you have to be such a sarcastic Jerkkk sometimes???Noone said anything about avoiding a non-existing forced draft. You are judging me entirely wrong based on your limited knowledge of librals. Many liberals DID fight in wars - we didn't all flee to Canada. GFY :loser: :spank:

Been there, done that. My original post had to do with the fact that the prez (for the 3rd year in a row) is shortshafting the civil service as compared to the military.

Originally posted by dems4me
Why do you have to be such a sarcastic Jerkkk sometimes???Noone said anything about avoiding a non-existing forced draft. You are judging me entirely wrong based on your limited knowledge of librals. Many liberals DID fight in wars - we didn't all flee to Canada. GFY :loser: :spank:

I am not judging you based on my limited knowledge of liberals, I am judging you based on what you said. You are the one who said:

Originally posted by dems4me
No, I don't want the decision of my life to be in anyone else's hands but my own. If people want to put me in the line of fire because they feel the sky is red and not blue, then no I don't want to risk my life for something petty. I am and always have been a Christian first and an American second .

:shrug:

I suppose it was poor of me to think you would have gone to Canada.........you might have chosen to go to the UK instead.

Oh yea, thats pretty mean language from a member of the "kinder gentler" party.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
For your information, military personnel DON'T get free meals once they're out of basic training.

Actually, you do get a food allowance, or at least if you have a family you do. Not that the military is a free ride or anything but I just consider it one of the perks, like my job has perks so do they. I think the pay is pretty equal after you add up all of the total perks and salary.

However on this topic my feelings are if there is a guy out putting his life on the line every day I'd rather give him more of a raise than someone who is sitting behind a desk each and every day.

Originally posted by Pete
I am not judging you based on my limited knowledge of liberals, I am judging you based on what you said. You are the one who said:



:shrug:

I suppose it was poor of me to think you would have gone to Canada.........you might have chosen to go to the UK instead.

Oh yea, thats pretty mean language from a member of the "kinder gentler" party.

I still stand by that - I want to fight for a cause that I believe in that doesn't mean there are NONE or did it remotely imply I would flee to Canada or the UK :bonehead:

Well, some of them are putting their lives on the line. But a lot of them are reservists too and don't see all those benefits, and a lot of them have never been outside the beltway. Of course cops & firefighters do it every day too. I suppose even Halliburton employees do nowadays.

Before the current "unpleasentness" most of the military worked their usual 7 - 3:30 shifts, except fleet sailors.

Originally posted by dems4me
I still stand by that - I want to fight for a cause that I believe in that doesn't mean there are NONE or did it remotely imply I would flee to Canada or the UK :bonehead: Have I made you angry? Have a cookie :cheers: ok, not a cookie but it is the closest I could come to a cookie.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Well, some of them are putting their lives on the line. But a lot of them are reservists too and don't see all those benefits, and a lot of them have never been outside the beltway.

Yeah, b/c for a reservist, it's such a picnic to give up your weekends to go do a job that you only get $50 a day to do and the 2 week - 6 month drills are like a vacation too:rolleyes:

Originally posted by jlabsher
the prez (for the 3rd year in a row) is shortshafting the civil service as compared to the military. So what? You all the ones crying because of the budget deficit. Now Bush decideds to trim a corner and you cry about that, too.

What do YOU think he should trim?

He's been sticking it to the civil service even before the deficit existed. Of course, spending 12 Billion on a missle defense makes sense these days, I know terrorists have ICBMs. (Just one cut)

Originally posted by Pete
Have I made you angry? Have a cookie :cheers: ok, not a cookie but it is the closest I could come to a cookie.

Thanks for the cookie (I'd prefer your beer icon over a cookie, so you guessed well). Just can't grab one right now. I've had a headache all day and people are getting all paranoid here at the office talking about ricin. It's like the only topic here and the only thing on people's brains. We didn't receive mail today because as usual, our's is routed through the same post office. I just don't trust the governement on issues like this.

Just like anthrax a few years ago where the government was sooo slow to give Cipro to the postal workers, but yet the government received it soo much quicker. Kind of as if anthrax inhalation is immune to everyone but govnt workers or something. A few years ago during this crisis, when they came for testing in their space suits, we were just standing around (totally unprotected) and they were telling us all not to worry, just routine tests, meanwhile they are dressed for the moon - it almost would have looked like post card or something with me waiving in the background or something.

Now that I'm on a rant I wish the CIA would get rid of Tenant (sp?) under his intelligence there has been 9/11, anthrax, snipers, wmd bogusness and now ricin. What IS he doing? Thanks for letting me rant Pete. Hope I didn't hurt your head to bad from the :spank: -- here :smoochy: (sorry, just like you couldn't find a cookie, I couldn't find the head rub smiley.)

Originally posted by jlabsher
Of course cops & firefighters do it every day too. I suppose even Halliburton employees do nowadays.

Are you saying that military pay should be increased at a higher percentage to reach parity with cops, firefighters, and Halliburton employees?
:shrug:

Originally posted by dems4me
Thanks for the cookie (I'd prefer your beer icon over a cookie, so you guessed well). Just can't grab one right now. I've had a headache all day and people are getting all paranoid here at the office talking about ricin. It's like the only topic here and the only thing on people's brains. We didn't receive mail today because as usual, our's is routed through the same post office. I just don't trust the governement on issues like this.

Just like anthrax a few years ago where the government was sooo slow to give Cipro to the postal workers, but yet the government received it soo much quicker. Kind of as if anthrax inhalation is immune to everyone but govnt workers or something. A few years ago during this crisis, when they came for testing in their space suits, we were just standing around (totally unprotected) and they were telling us all not to worry, just routine tests, meanwhile they are dressed for the moon - it almost would have looked like post card or something with me waiving in the background or something.

Now that I'm on a rant I wish the CIA would get rid of Tenant (sp?) under his intelligence there has been 9/11, anthrax, snipers, wmd bogusness and now ricin. What IS he doing? Thanks for letting me rant Pete. Hope I didn't hurt your head to bad from the :spank: -- here :smoochy: (sorry, just like you couldn't find a cookie, I couldn't find the head rub smiley.) No problem, I am still going to cancel out your vote. :biggrin:

Pete -- feel free to -- its only one vote of many that you can only cancel out - what about all the others?.
Unfortunately I can not vote in primary due to conflicts but I am looking forward to November!!!! :patriot: Then village idoit I'll be sending you an email telling you the "tribe has spoken".
:cheesy:

Originally posted by dems4me
Pete -- feel free to -- its only one vote of many that you can only cancel out - what about all the others?.
Unfortunately I can not vote in primary due to conflicts but I am looking forward to November!!!! :patriot: Then village idoit I'll be sending you an email telling you the "tribe has spoken".
:cheesy: No biggie, I predict Kerry will do slightly better than Mondale. None the less, when the results come in you cannot skulk off you have to stay here and take your thrashing like a ........well I can't think of anything right this second.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Of course cops & firefighters do it every day too.

BTW, all firefighters (except for on bases) in southern maryland are volunteer, big pay there.

Originally posted by jlabsher
He's been sticking it to the civil service even before the deficit existed. Of course, spending 12 Billion on a missle defense makes sense these days, I know terrorists have ICBMs. I've always thought missile defense was a good idea and couldn't understand why Clinton scrapped it.

Anyway, you had your chance to vote for reduced military spending. I voted for an increase and my side won. Get over it.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I've always thought missile defense was a good idea and couldn't understand why Clinton scrapped it.

Anyway, you had your chance to vote for reduced military spending. I voted for an increase and my side won. Get over it.

From what I recall vrai, our StarWars program has yet to pass any tests that it gets tested at. Everytime they test it to see if it would block a missle - it fails. I'm going to regret saying this but.... I.... could..... be....... wrong......:confused:

Hey at least the federal civil workers are getting something. Thing about all the state workers in VA who lost their jobs or the ones who kept them in other states without merit or COLAs. For some of them the only increase they have seen is in their health care costs.

Originally posted by dems4me
From what I recall vrai, our StarWars program has yet to pass any tests that it gets tested at. Everytime they test it to see if it would block a missle - it fails. I'm going to regret saying this but.... I.... could..... be....... wrong...... Not sure what the status of Star Wars is. But I don't really expect something that sophisticated to work the first time out.

One more thing: think about all the jobs defense spending creates. Shoot, EVERYONE at Pax is only there because of defense spending. Then there are the homebuilders who are making money building houses for them. And the restaurant owners who making money feeding them. And the store owners who are making money suppling them with goods.

You can say it's better to spend less on defense and more on some social program, but the fact is that defense spending keeps people off the breadlines.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Not sure what the status of Star Wars is. But I don't really expect something that sophisticated to work the first time out.

One more thing: think about all the jobs defense spending creates. Shoot, EVERYONE at Pax is only there because of defense spending. Then there are the homebuilders who are making money building houses for them. And the restaurant owners who making money feeding them. And the store owners who are making money suppling them with goods.

You can say it's better to spend less on defense and more on some social program, but the fact is that defense spending keeps people off the breadlines. :otter:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Not sure what the status of Star Wars is. But I don't really expect something that sophisticated to work the first time out.

One more thing: think about all the jobs defense spending creates. Shoot, EVERYONE at Pax is only there because of defense spending. Then there are the homebuilders who are making money building houses for them. And the restaurant owners who making money feeding them. And the store owners who are making money suppling them with goods.

You can say it's better to spend less on defense and more on some social program, but the fact is that defense spending keeps people off the breadlines.


I believe the Star Wars program was brought about during the Reagan administration in the 80's and was a hot-topic back then. It is now 20 years later and it's still crap and doesn't work - its another case of "the fleecing of america"

Originally posted by dems4me
I believe the Star Wars program was brought about during the Reagan administration in the 80's and was a hot-topic back then. It is now 20 years later and it's still crap and doesn't work - its another case of "the fleecing of america" Well, to be fair, it hasn't really had a lot of research done since 1992. If you get my drift. But, again, I don't know the status of it. I'll do a Google and see what's up when I get a moment.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Not sure what the status of Star Wars is. But I don't really expect something that sophisticated to work the first time out.

One more thing: think about all the jobs defense spending creates. Shoot, EVERYONE at Pax is only there because of defense spending. Then there are the homebuilders who are making money building houses for them. And the restaurant owners who making money feeding them. And the store owners who are making money suppling them with goods.

You can say it's better to spend less on defense and more on some social program, but the fact is that defense spending keeps people off the breadlines.

I stand corrected -- as of June 2000 it had flunked 14 out of 16 tests. 2 did pass but I think that may have been a computer glitch.

Here's your timeline:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=565

And another one:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/etc/cron.html

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Here's your timeline:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=565


Vrai this refers to the NMD program overall -- Star Wars is a program inside of the NMD

Here's an article I found

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/ny012000.htm

Originally posted by dems4me
I believe the Star Wars program was brought about during the Reagan administration in the 80's and was a hot-topic back then. It is now 20 years later and it's still crap and doesn't work - its another case of "the fleecing of america"

By this standard, welfare programs should be gone as well.

Actually, ballistic missle defense is getting better all the time - and has secondary benefits as well...Look at the improvements to the Patriot system last year as compared to '92 (remember the Dem chants "you can't shoot a missile with a missile?). The system has improved dramatically.

And, you could effectively argue that the "Star Wars" program was the straw that broke the Soviet Union's back, desparately trying to keep up research to match the US.
(Admit it...That's really why you're sore, right?)

I believe Russia was already starting to collapse before the introduction of Star Wars.

Welfare I think is a good thing. I have no problem helping out those less fortunate. -- You know... blessed is the giver?

I'm confused as to what we're talking about. The Strategic Defense Initiative was nicknamed Star Wars. I thought missile defense fell under that heading, not the other way around.

Someone help me!

Originally posted by dems4me
I believe Russia was already starting to collapse before the introduction of Star Wars. SDI was introduced in 1984. The "Tear down this wall" speech was made in 1987. So that tells me Russia was NOT starting to collapse before SDI. Unless you consider that they were already a collapsed society anyway and just looking for someone like Reagan to come along and kick the final stone out from under them.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'm confused as to what we're talking about. The Strategic Defense Initiative was nicknamed Star Wars. I thought missile defense fell under that heading, not the other way around.

Someone help me!

Star Wars was a failed program in our National Missle Defense program. There are other programs but Star Wars was not a success and had nothing to do with Russia's economic collapse.

Originally posted by dems4me
Star Wars was a failed program in our National Missle Defense program. There are other programs but Star Wars was not a success and had nothing to do with Russia's economic collapse. My World Almanac for Kids (http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/space/sdi.html) (woo hoo!) says the SDI program was abandoned under Clinton, not that it had failed.

Originally posted by dems4me
Star Wars was a failed program in our National Missle Defense program. There are other programs but Star Wars was not a success and had nothing to do with Russia's economic collapse.

Please!
Firstly, research continues to this day...for a primer on the mulituded of space-based defense programs, I'd suggest
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/bmd.htm
Spend a few hours there (at least) before making such broad statements.

Second, you obviously have little experience in the sciences or engineering...Tests are not to demonstrate a fully deployable system (99.9999% of the time) but rather to LEARN WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. The most successful test is one that fails, as it reveals one more obstacle on the way to true success.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
My World Almanac for Kids (http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/space/sdi.html) (woo hoo!) says the SDI program was abandoned under Clinton, not that it had failed.

Ok Vrai -- I'll bite -- don't you think it is because it was a failure that it was abandoned????????:bonk:

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Please!
Firstly, research continues to this day...for a primer on the mulituded of space-based defense programs, I'd suggest
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/bmd.htm
Spend a few hours there (at least) before making such broad statements.

Second, you obviously have little experience in the sciences or engineering...Tests are not to demonstrate a fully deployable system (99.9999% of the time) but rather to LEARN WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. The most successful test is one that fails, as it reveals one more obstacle on the way to success.

Thanks, ST..:clap:

Originally posted by dems4me
Ok Vrai -- I'll bite -- don't you think it is because it was a failure that it was abandoned???????? Well...no. :confused: It's pretty obvious that it was a lack of defense committment on the part of the Clinton Administration that led to the abandonment of SDI and the reduced funding of our military in general.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Well...no. :confused: It's pretty obvious that it was a lack of defense committment on the part of the Clinton Administration that led to the abandonment of SDI and the reduced funding of our military in general.

And quite possibly, because SDI had *accomplished its mission* - ending (and winning) the Cold War.

I've little doubt from reading Gorbachev, that a missile defense system absolutely horrified the Soviet Union. Their entire military threat rested on thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads - which could be rendered completely useless by the Americans.

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Please!
Firstly, research continues to this day...for a primer on the mulituded of space-based defense programs, I'd suggest
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/bmd.htm
Spend a few hours there (at least) before making such broad statements.

Second, you obviously have little experience in the sciences or engineering...Tests are not to demonstrate a fully deployable system (99.9999% of the time) but rather to LEARN WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. The most successful test is one that fails, as it reveals one more obstacle on the way to true success.

I never said we discontinued our National Missle Defense program at all. I said Star Wars is defunct and never worked. If you had looked this up say 15 years ago -- you would see "Star Wars Program" underneath the link of National Missle Defense as one of a NMD programs.

Any thing that has to do with democrats v. republican issues on this webcite is like speaking with :childrenofthecorn: - you can feel free to lay your rose tinted glasses down somewhere after your fantasy perfect republican bubble pops.

Originally posted by dems4me
Any thing that has to do with democrats v. republican issues on this webcite is like speaking with :childrenofthecorn: - you can feel free to lay your rose tinted glasses down somewhere after your fantasy perfect republican bubble pops.

And you don't???? :lmao: Were the folks here looking at Dean with rose tinted glasses or were you??

Originally posted by SamSpade
And quite possibly, because SDI had *accomplished its mission* - ending (and winning) the Cold War. But wouldn't it have made more sense to keep working on it and perfecting it? The bad guys didn't go away, after all.

Help me with my education - I probably don't understand this stuff the way I should.

Originally posted by otter
And you don't???? :lmao: Were the folks here looking at Dean with rose tinted glasses or were you??


I like Dean's record and have no shame backing him for this. It was his desperation that frieghtened me away. If Dean beats out Kerry then I'm back to rooting for Dean, if not I'm sticking with Kerry.

Originally posted by dems4me
Any thing that has to do with democrats v. republican issues on this webcite is like speaking with :childrenofthecorn: - you can feel free to lay your rose tinted glasses down somewhere after your fantasy perfect republican bubble pops. What in the hell are you talking about? Nobody said anything about Democrats vs. Republicans. :confused:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
What in the hell are you talking about? Nobody said anything about Democrats vs. Republicans. :confused:

Its the slant vrai - everything bad that happens to the milatary must be Clinton or some other democrats fault and now we have simply moved onto Star Wars being the greatest program of all and mean ol' Clinton abandoned it for entirely no reason.

For that matter, lets just here and now say it -- everything in the world that is bad is because of Democrats or a democratic president, everything milatary related, everything that helps welfare and other outreach programs, everything that helps the lower and middle class, etc....

I just get tired of hearing this day in and day out.

Originally posted by dems4me
Its the slant vrai Facts are facts. If it upsets you that Democrats aren't into a well-funded military and don't want to spend money on defense R & D, then you need to think about who you're voting for, not take it out on us.

What's the difference between National Missile Defense and SDI? I thought they were the same thing. :confused:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Facts are facts. If it upsets you that Democrats aren't into a well-funded military and don't want to spend money on defense R & D, then you need to think about who you're voting for, not take it out on us.


Thats just it -- fact finding. Everytime a Republican on here finds facts - the dems say -- consider the source and its not reliable and same for when Democrats point out facts, etc. it is spun into bad data or people acting like hey can not comprehend something -- for example Sparx unemployment chart posted yesterday.

People in here can not pick a fact source to agree on when it comes for facts.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
But wouldn't it have made more sense to keep working on it and perfecting it? The bad guys didn't go away, after all.

Help me with my education - I probably don't understand this stuff the way I should.

Well neither do I, because I honest to God have not kept up with it. I remember back in the Gulf War, there was some speculation as to whether the Patriots actually stopped *any* Scuds from attacking. One analysis showed possibly no better than 9%. (Please don't ask me to go into it - the stuff I read was extensive - evaluations on what constituted a 'kill' and how the Patriot missile would indicate it, and so on).

We're not extremely advanced on anti-missile technology yet.

But SDI was to my knowledge, a whole 'nother animal - a system designed to stop the Soviet Union's barrage of ICBM's. Whether it worked or not, it forced the Soviet Union to recognize one thing - they had to either KEEP building MORE missiles, and keep maintaining a huge arsenal, or find some other way to deal with the problem. Gorbachev actually suspected that "peace" would ruin the US - that it depended so much on its "military industrial complex" (remember that phrase?) that "peace" would actually be the worst thing for us.

So SDI didn't ever *really* work. It got the job done. The big bad wolf was gone.

So why should we KEEP working on it? Wasn't the world safer, now that the Soviet Union was no more? There weren't any other bad guys. Why bother?

You know, it's not as though "nuclear terrorism" was something we were thinking about, then.

I'm not convinced that we're in great need of a missile defense system. Maybe *Taiwan* is. Perhaps South Korea. But not us.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Facts are facts. If it upsets you that Democrats aren't into a well-funded military and don't want to spend money on defense R & D, then you need to think about who you're voting for, not take it out on us.

Vrai I'm not taking anything out on y'all. I back up the dems is all. I'm not in the military or anything like that so the issue does not even directly involve me. I don't think we need to blow a bunch of money on defense R & D no more than tying in the great scientific benefits well will have by spending a bunch of money on Mar's exploration.

Originally posted by dems4me
People in here can not pick a fact source to agree on when it comes for facts. I'm throwing the flag on you. :bs: I gave you PBS timelines and World Almanac sites as a source. You gave me an opinion piece as your source.

Do you understand the difference and what constitutes a credible source?

I addressed Sparx's unemployment chart directly and told him what was obvious to me from looking at that graph - that Republicans bring down unemployment and Democrats raise it right back up again. Look again at that chart and tell me that's not what you see as well.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Wow Vrai, I wish I got my meals, medical, house, and clothes for free. Just like those poor military types.

UFB

Originally posted by dems4me
I don't think we need to blow a bunch of money on defense R & D no more than tying in the great scientific benefits well will have by spending a bunch of money on Mar's exploration. And I say defense R&D and space exploration has led to some of our greatest inventions in the 20th century.

Ever hear of something called ARPANET?

Originally posted by dems4me
I don't think we need to blow a bunch of money on defense R & D

Usually, R & D is a drop in the bucket compared to the other expenses even in the Defense Dept. And it is way below the exorbitant costs of all the entitlement programs in our budget.

R & D is money well spent. It doesn't do us any good to have a world-class tank if someone can develop a brand-new tank killer weapon can be had for a few thousand that can blow it away. We can make the world's most silent subs, the most deadly jet fighters, the most accurate missiles - and be rendered useless by a new technology because we rested on our laurels.

That's what happened to the Soviet Union. They became a world superpower by building an arsenal of massive nuclear weapons. Eventually it became a millstone around their necks that they couldn't afford to maintain, and could not deploy without getting their azz kicked.

Originally posted by SamSpade
You know, it's not as though "nuclear terrorism" was something we were thinking about, then. But shouldn't we be thinking about it now, in light of the War on Tara?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
And I say defense R&D and space exploration has led to some of our greatest inventions in the 20th century.

Ever hear of something called ARPANET?

No idea what ARPANET is - explain? And, I hope it cost billions and billions of dollars.


I've cited things from the Department of Labor, and other reputable cites in the past and its always the same response.

Ive looked at the chart and in no form does it show Republicans lower the UNemployment rate and the Dems doing the opposite. See its another who has the rose tinted glasses on. They are not talking about employment rates they are talking about UNEMPLOYMENT RATES -- 221 people viewed this chart and only 16 people responded to it - they were speachless???:confused:

Re look at the chart. I've got to go in about 20 min. I look forward to your response -- as you say "with baited breath"
:crazy:

Dems, it saddens me that you cannot see how silly your arguments look. You cannot provide anything other than opinions, and rhetoric. You loathe Bush, you are not sure why, you just do and that is the only driver in your rhetoric. Just admit it.

Originally posted by dems4me
No idea what ARPANET is - explain? And, I hope it cost billions and billions of dollars.


You should - you're basically *using* it right now. It developed into what we call the Internet. ARPANET was not intended for use outside the military.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Well in the "real" navy (ships you know) meals are free onboard the ship. If you are on shore duty (and Army, AF, & the rest) you get a monthly tax-free meals allowance in your paycheck, then you go to the chow hall to eat and pay for it. On the ship, you don't get that tax free allowance.

If you live in base housing (remember the spouse didn't come with the seabag sailor, getting married was your choice) the only bill you have is cable & telephone, keep the heat at 80 and the A/C at 60, run the lights all the time. If you live off base your BAH is tax-free, so if you're an E-1 (not many of them) that is $1020 @ month in pax or another $12.2K tax free a year.

For your meals you get $8.10 a day or $250 @ month, or about $3K a year tax free.

Medical, hmmm $250 a month average insurance. Another 3K a year.

That equals $18.2K a year tax free on those 3 benefits. At the 18% rate that equals about $21500 at the taxable rate. So the poor married E-1 who earns $13 K actually gets about $34500.

You failed to mention that BAH is only $840 for those w/o dependents. Try using another zip code (http://www.dtic.mil/perdiem/bahform.html) and see what you come up with. Those allowances obviously vary by location, which means my whopping $836 :rolleyes: could buy my family a decent single family home - think again.

As for meals...meals schmeals! I can't remember the last time my husband was able to get a meal from the base's fine dining facility.:rolleyes:

Medical - is that what you call it?

I'd hardly classify any of those as "benefits".

Originally posted by Pete
Dems, it saddens me that you cannot see how silly your arguments look. You cannot provide anything other than opinions, and rhetoric. You loathe Bush, you are not sure why, you just do and that is the only driver in your rhetoric. Just admit it.


No I don't loath Bush. I posted good things about him yesterday -- you loath anything having to do with a democrat -- I just try to defend them sometimes.

Am I wrong about the chart thing? It clearly states UNEMPLOYMENT -- my posts may seem amusing to you and others that are republicans with their heads in the same, but they are truthful.

I can quit and not post here anymore. It would save me a lot of grief and hair pulling in disbelief of some of the opinions stated here.

Once again, y'all win and you get the nice republican forum back without any opposition in politics and every thing ends happily every after for y'all. I'm just stating my beliefs (backed on fact) as y'all do yours and I'm ALWAYS the one getting picked on. I can certainly find other (more productive) uses for my time.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
But shouldn't we be thinking about it now, in light of the War on Tara?

Well sure, although I don't think ANY terrorist plans to attack the US with a nuclear missile. It would be far cheaper to smuggle one in than try to attack it from hundreds of miles away.

And of course, we thought back in '91 that there were no more enemies for the US. Defense just "wasn't needed".

Originally posted by dems4me
Why do you have to be such a sarcastic Jerkkk sometimes???Noone said anything about avoiding a non-existing forced draft. You are judging me entirely wrong based on your limited knowledge of librals. Many liberals DID fight in wars - we didn't all flee to Canada. GFY :loser: :spank:

You still haven't answered Pete's question, dems.

Originally posted by SamSpade
You should - you're basically *using* it right now. It developed into what we call the Internet. ARPANET was not intended for use outside the military.

NOOOO NOOOOOO Gore discovered the internet:banghead:
J/K

Originally posted by dems4me
No I don't loath Bush. I posted good things about him yesterday -- you loath anything having to do with a democrat -- I just try to defend them sometimes.

Am I wrong about the chart thing? It clearly states UNEMPLOYMENT -- my posts may seem amusing to you and others that are republicans with their heads in the same, but they are truthful.

I can quit and not post here anymore. It would save me a lot of grief and hair pulling in disbelief of some of the opinions stated here.

Once again, y'all win and you get the nice republican forum back without any opposition in politics and every thing ends happily every after for y'all. I'm just stating my beliefs (backed on fact) as y'all do yours and I'm ALWAYS the one getting picked on. I can certainly find other (more productive) uses for my time. OK :shrug: but I would remind you that this is only a microcosm of society as a whole, think about it. For every one of you that trots into the voting booth, there are 5 of us. :cheers:

Originally posted by tys_mommy
I think the pay is pretty equal after you add up all of the total perks and salary.

I'd have to disagree. If I didn't work, as most wives don't, we'd actually qualify for assistance. :ohwell:

Originally posted by ememdee19
You still haven't answered Pete's question, dems.

I did answer his question - I wouldn't go to Canada but its a hypothetical question on circumstances that don't exist today. Is that the question you were referring to emem

Originally posted by dems4me
I did answer his question - I wouldn't go to Canada but its a hypothetical question on circumstances that don't exist today. Is that the question you were referring to emem

What if they did exist? As Pete asked, if they were to reinstate the draft, what would you do?

Originally posted by Pete
OK :shrug: but I would remind you that this is only a microcosm of society as a whole, think about it. For every one of you that trots into the voting booth, there are 5 of us. :cheers:

Freightening. But there are others. Generally people in Southern Maryland (very south and east) are republicans demographically (I think because of the large military bases) so I guess this is what I shall expect from a forum based out of there.

The voting booth is something entirely different -- more than the people in this somd forum will be voting!

:cheers: back to you

Originally posted by dems4me
Once again, y'all win and you get the nice republican forum back without any opposition in politics and every thing ends happily every after for y'all. I'm just stating my beliefs (backed on fact) as y'all do yours and I'm ALWAYS the one getting picked on.

Oh hardly. I don't think you're really seeing this.

See, when everyone *agrees* on a subject, someone starts a thread, and there's a few follow up comments, and a few "yep, yep" comments and the thread dies. There's just only so many ways to *agree* on something.

But *disagree* on something - and the thread continues. It keeps going until one side more or less gives up, either in anger, disgust, exhaustion or sheer lack of interest in pursuing it further. There's actually a whole science to examining argument online, which has led to the formation of "Godwin's Law".

*YOU* are the only one disagreeing - unfortunately, there isn't much of a balance in here. So it's only natural that those who disagree with you will address what YOU have to say. They're not "picking on you" anymore than you are picking on them. It's not personal. It's just, as long as you disagree with me, and I want to keep debating, I'm going to find fault with your argument.

Originally posted by ememdee19
What if they did exist? As Pete asked, if they were to reinstate the draft, what would you do?

Its one of those things that I just don't know because I'm not in that situation. A few things are like that where I just don't have an opinoin because I've never been in the exact same situation - abortion is one of them -- I have no opinion one way or the other because I've never been in that position.

If there was a draft -- I'm too old to be drafted and have health problems.

Originally posted by dems4me
Freightening. But there are others. Generally people in Southern Maryland (very south and east) are republicans demographically (I think because of the large military bases) so I guess this is what I shall expect from a forum based out of there.

The voting booth is something entirely different -- more than the people in this somd forum will be voting!

:cheers: back to you

He's not suggesting there's 5 Southern Marylanders who vote conservatively for every one that does not - he's going wider than that. He's probably wrong about that, but I do believe the nation is more conservative than liberals would like to believe.

It's *your* answer which most alarms *me*. If the entire nation felt differently than you do, politically - that would be "frightening"? The nature of democracy is to fulfill the will of the people. If "the people" want something other than the liberal platform, then that's what the people want. I keep coming across this attitude amongst liberals - that their view is the *correct* view, and if the people feel differently, then dammit, the people need to be shown they're wrong. It's like what Mo Udall said when he got voted out of office - "the people have spoken - the bastards".

Originally posted by dems4me
Its one of those things that I just don't know because I'm not in that situation. A few things are like that where I just don't have an opinoin because I've never been in the exact same situation - abortion is one of them -- I have no opinion one way or the other because I've never been in that position.

If there was a draft -- I'm too old to be drafted and have health problems.

does anyone know what the probability is that they will bring back the draft one day??? im the perfect age :frown:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
does anyone know what the probability is that they will bring back the draft one day??? im the perfect age :frown:

BE AFRAID - BE VERY AFRAID!

Originally posted by SamSpade
He's not suggesting there's 5 Southern Marylanders who vote conservatively for every one that does not - he's going wider than that. He's probably wrong about that, but I do believe the nation is more conservative than liberals would like to believe.

It's *your* answer which most alarms *me*. If the entire nation felt differently than you do, politically - that would be "frightening"? The nature of democracy is to fulfill the will of the people. If "the people" want something other than the liberal platform, then that's what the people want. I keep coming across this attitude amongst liberals - that their view is the *correct* view, and if the people feel differently, then dammit, the people need to be shown they're wrong. It's like what Mo Udall said when he got voted out of office - "the people have spoken - the bastards".

Yes Sam and here we go back on our discussion yesterday about polls, Kerry is beating Bush with 53% of the vote. Its not just me and I have a feeling alot of Liberals are waiting until November to make a stand and their vote which is democracy -- people voting for their candidate

Originally posted by SamSpade
BE AFRAID - BE VERY AFRAID!

(quote from Austin Powers)

im shaking in my little space boots

Originally posted by SamSpade
BE AFRAID - BE VERY AFRAID!

Look I gotta run. Nice talking with all of you -- even if y'all poke fun at me, disagree and use sarcasim against me. .:bawl:

Have a nice evening

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Originally posted by dems4me
Look I gotta run. Nice talking with all of you -- even if y'all poke fun at me, disagree and use sarcasim against me. .:bawl:

Have a nice evening

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

no poking here:wink:

Originally posted by dems4me
Re look at the chart. You're probably gone by now so you'll see this tomorrow.

Print out the chart and put it in front of you. Let's start with Ford (R) and his big ol' whopper spike in unemployment. That was most likely the guys coming back from Vietnam to no job prospects.

Under Ford, it starts to go down and continues downward until the middle of the Carter Administration (D), when unemployment starts going back up again. We were in a nasty recession at that time but you might not be old enough to remember it.

Under Carter, unemployment continues to rise until it peaks at 9.75% during Reagan's (R) first term. Then it goes down down down until it reaches about 5% in the first year or so of the first Bush Administration. Then, still under Bush, unemployment starts to rise again, up to 7.5%. Still under Bush, unemployment starts to go down, just in time for Clinton (D) to take over.

Under Clinton, unemployment keeps on it's downward trend, going as low as 3.8%. Then it starts to rise again during Clinton's last year in office and continues to rise under Bush.

I'm not crazy. I know what I see. Since the chart makers are trying to focus you on the spikes under Republican Presidents, you're not seeing the trend, i.e. the rise and fall, and who was President during that rise and fall.

Originally posted by SamSpade
BE AFRAID - BE VERY AFRAID!

:yeahthat: I've heard quite a bit of talk about it.

Originally posted by dems4me
Look I gotta run. Nice talking with all of you -- even if y'all poke fun at me, disagree and use sarcasim against me. .:bawl:

Have a nice evening

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: WAIT.....your soccer ball fell out of the minivan.........WAIT

Originally posted by ememdee19
:yeahthat: I've heard quite a bit of talk about it.

really....

i sure hope they dont do the draft. i wouldnt want to fight for an ignorant cause. plus if they let the draft in soon BUSH WOULD BE IN TROUBLE:yikes:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
i sure hope they dont do the draft. Me too because, no offense, but I don't want a bunch of slackers who don't want to be there standing between me and some Muslim terrorist.

by the way IF they were to call a draft, why in the heck would they even need one?? who are we fighting? dont we have enough troops already for this small country?

Originally posted by dems4me
Yes Sam and here we go back on our discussion yesterday about polls, Kerry is beating Bush with 53% of the vote. Its not just me and I have a feeling alot of Liberals are waiting until November to make a stand and their vote which is democracy -- people voting for their candidate


I'm not persuaded by a single barrage of polls in a small time period - Bush has consistently been the winner of those match-ups until just a few days ago. Even as recent as two weeks ago, a Bush-Kerry race produced numbers exactly the opposite of the latest ones.

My job is statistics. It's been statistics on and off for the last 14 years. I'm not saying, hey, I know more about this than you do, but I am saying, there's more to it than I suppose you think there is. You can't take a poll one week and think, that's the way the nation feels for the next ten months. It doesn't work that way. For one - it's a long way to November. And for another, Kerry is experiencing a surge from the primaries - the press is covering him a lot. They're covering Edwards a lot lately, too, because of his showing in New Hampshire and Iowa. That HELPS his popularity.

Media coverage will always give a boost to a politician's popularity - unless it's because of a *gaffe* - but when the smoke clears, you're going to see Bush surge again. He's been ahead in these match-ups for months now - you're going to see a return to it in the near future.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
by the way IF they were to call a draft, why in the heck would they even need one?? who are we fighting? dont we have enough troops already for this small country?

Which small country? The USA? We're what, the fourth largest in the world? Or Iraq, which is the size of all of New England, with New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia thrown in for good measure?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
by the way IF they were to call a draft, why in the heck would they even need one?? who are we fighting? dont we have enough troops already for this small country?

Buddy read the paper and see where all our troops are being sent to. It's not just Iraq, we have peace keeping troops all over the world. And in answer to your draft question, how many tour of duties in Iraq for active and reserve units is enough? Units that originally invaded Iraq have recently been sent back for another nice vacation! When will it be time for elgible citizens who are sitting back complaining about military pay in the comfort of their homes going to step up and volunteer. Or do they consider by voting is enough to fulfill their civic duty.
JBLASHER you need to get a effing clue! :barf:

Originally posted by cariblue
Some of the comments in this thread made me sick.

Didja spit up any pea soup?

Originally posted by cariblue
Some of the comments in this thread made me sick.
I agree Cari! Some of them deserve my samples!:biggrin:

Originally posted by cariblue
Your samples would be far too delicate. They need the whole damn applicator shoved up their azzes.
:clap: :clap:

Originally posted by PrepH4U
Buddy read the paper and see where all our troops are being sent to. It's not just Iraq, we have peace keeping troops all over the world. And in answer to your draft question, how many tour of duties in Iraq for active and reserve units is enough? Units that originally invaded Iraq have recently been sent back for another nice vacation! When will it be time for elgible citizens who are sitting back complaining about military pay in the comfort of their homes going to step up and volunteer. Or do they consider by voting is enough to fulfill their civic duty.
JBLASHER you need to get a effing clue! :barf:

:yeahthat: Who's left back "home" to do the job when the majority of our service men and women are defending our asses in another country?

Whether it be active duty or dependent spouse/child, I dare any one of you nay-sayers to try it for a week. You wouldn't last.