The Liberal Slant B.S. on BRAC has started...

[FromTexas]

(note: this is not a TP '08 message)

Slanted BRAC B.S.

President Bush's home state of Texas could gain more than 9,000 military jobs even while losing four major installations and several smaller ones, and Florida, where the president's brother is governor, would add 2,575 jobs overall while losing none of its bases.

Texas will gain a net of approx 6000 jobs over its entire area. They choose the higest number gain (military) despite a net loss to the civilian workforce of approx. 3000. Florida has a net loss of civilian workforce around 1000 while getting approx 3700 military. Net loss civilians means elimination of local jobs. Military tends to be brought in and not creating local jobs. That changes the story a bit.

Yet, they ignore the fact a strong BLUE state like MD gains approx 9000 civilian jobs and 1800 contractor jobs while losing 1500 military. That is 10800 new jobs in Maryland which can be filled by local people. That number equals the number of military billets created between FL and TX.

 

[Spoiled]

Hey, are you worried the same people who think Iraq had something to do with 9-11 or that we found WMDs in Iraq will believe that?


Come on, have some faith in your fellow Americans

 

[FromTexas]

Child: Momma, check out the democrat pull string doll...

(child pulls string...)

people who think Iraq had something to do with 9-11 or that we found WMDs in Iraq will believe that? ...

Mom: Wow! It says it repeats six different democrat messages.

Child: Can I have one?

Mom: Put it on your Christmas list.

 

[vraiblonde]

 

[Tonio]

After the list was announced today, the Post held an online chat with someone from the American Federation of Government Employees. I don't know much about that organization, but I thought the paragraph below was way out of line. He's accusing the Bush Administration of using BRAC to punish certain congressmen. I think it's irresponsible to make that kind of accusation without solid evidence to back it up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/05/13/DI2005051300573.html

We must be extremely careful in what is happening within the Department of Defense. Some decisions just don't seem to make much sense. When politicians have questioned the administration their states today have been raped under BRAC. Civilian employees are being stripped of basic rights afforded to all Americans under NSPS. Why? Why does this administration want and require so much control and so much power? How is this all good for America? How does this enhance our National Security. America, you must wake up and question what is going on.

 

[Bruzilla]

Funny how Liberals always scream about their cuts when they're the ones pushing for reduced military spending.

 

[vraiblonde]

Don Hale:

Incredible and major retard. He should be embarrassed to even be alive.

Steny Hoyer: Democrat
Roscoe Bartlett: Republican

Who got hit harder with BRAC? Why, by golly, it looks like Roscoe!

Every single state in the Union has congressmen who agree with the President and congressmen who disagree. Yeah, it's sure obvious that Bush was trying to reward Steny. I mean, Roscoe. Could be Steny. Or is it Roscoe?

The highly disagreeable Mikulski and Sarbanes are pretty happy with what they got. So is Bob Ehrlich.

 

[vraiblonde]

My email to the AFGE

Don Hale made a complete ass of himself on behalf of your organization today, with the transcript online and available to all, no less.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/05/13/DI2005051300573.html

He states:

Don Hale: In my opinion, politics has played a major role in the BRAC decision making process. Just examine the list and it's obvious that there is a conection between base closures and those politicians that do not always support the administration.

and

Don Hale: I apologize for not answering all of your questions, some of them were above my pay grade. Please keep this mind. We must be extremely careful in what is happening within the Department of Defense. Some decisions just don't seem to make much sense. When politicians have questioned the administration their states today have been raped under BRAC. Civilian employees are being stripped of basic rights afforded to all Americans under NSPS. Why? Why does this administration want and require so much control and so much power? How is this all good for America? How does this enhance our National Security. America, you must wake up and question what is going on. Thanks and please have a great day.

</NITF>Anyone with half a brain would realize that every single state in the union has politicians who disagree with the President, and politicians who agree with the President as well. Here in my state of Maryland, Steny Hoyer (Democratic representing southern Maryland, including Patuxent River NAWCAD) has been one of George Bush's harshest critics, and his base has a gain. Democrat Elijah Cummings must be pretty happy with his gain of over 5,000 jobs at Ft. Meade. And I'm certain that Democrat Chris Van Hollen isn't displeased with the over 1,800 new folks that will be coming to Bethesda Naval Medical Center.

Massachusetts, home of Bush's two most prominent adversaries, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, will be getting 491 new neighbors. And Howard Dean's home state of Vermont will get 53 new residents, even though Dean has referred to George Bush as "the enemy" on more than one occasion.

Mr. Hale needs to be reprimanded and discharged from his position within your organization if you hope to hold on to the shred of credibility you still have. The AFGE is a joke and it's pretty obvious that you have no interest in representing federal employees and only exist to engage in partisan politics on behalf of the Democrats.

*Signed by me*​

​

Here's their email address: comments@afge.org​

 

[SmallTown]

Funny how Liberals always scream about their cuts when they're the ones pushing for reduced military spending.

We were laughing about this yesterday at work. A republican proposes a list of base closings and realignments, and it is for the good of the country and the military and will make our military stronger and more efficient.
A democrat proposes base closings and realignments, people go off pointing fingers yelling "See! Told you! they hate the military and want to cut their funding!"

 

[Bruzilla]

We were laughing about this yesterday at work. A republican proposes a list of base closings and realignments, and it is for the good of the country and the military and will make our military stronger and more efficient.
A democrat proposes base closings and realignments, people go off pointing fingers yelling "See! Told you! they hate the military and want to cut their funding!"

Nice try ST, but you're off the mark. Again. What BRAC does is close and realign bases, not units. The submarines currently based at New London for example, will be relocated to Norfolk or Kings Bay, they will not be removed from service. All that's happening is that duplicated support efforts are being eliminated and the military retains all of its capabilities.

Now compare that to what the Democrats have been advocating for decades. They would prefer we close the base AND decommission the vessels there. They would prefer we close the air base AND get rid of the aircraft. That's a huge difference! And then you have the Clintonites who thought they could run a shell game with the military by changing active duty forces to reserve and guard forces in order to maintain troop strengths on paper while greatly reducing the costs of the military... but then came a war and surprise... the reserves and guardsmen have to go fight it.

Don't waste your finger skin trying to compare BRAC to what the Democrats would like to do to the military.

 

[SmallTown]

Nice try ST, but you're off the mark. Again. What BRAC does is close and realign bases, not units. The submarines currently based at New London for example, will be relocated to Norfolk or Kings Bay, they will not be removed from service. All that's happening is that duplicated support efforts are being eliminated and the military retains all of its capabilities.

Now compare that to what the Democrats have been advocating for decades. They would prefer we close the base AND decommission the vessels there. They would prefer we close the air base AND get rid of the aircraft. That's a huge difference! And then you have the Clintonites who thought they could run a shell game with the military by changing active duty forces to reserve and guard forces in order to maintain troop strengths on paper while greatly reducing the costs of the military... but then came a war and surprise... the reserves and guardsmen have to go fight it.

Don't waste your finger skin trying to compare BRAC to what the Democrats would like to do to the military.

Seems you are the one who completely missed the mark. I said had the dems proposed the SAME plan, there would be finger pointing all over the place.
Your response is exactly the knee-jerk reaction I was talking about

 

[Bruzilla]

Well... being as it was the Democrats who started BRAC in the first place...

 

[Bruzilla]

Hey neighbor. I was just up in your St. Mary's this week. It's almost worth driving up there just to get the cheaper gas.

I get so tired of Democrats trying to justify their positions by pointing to anomolies in their positions rather than the core. They'll be against every new military program but one or two, and they'll point to those two to counter charges that they are against the military... charges based on the dozens of programs they were against.

Same deal here. When the Dems were in power and the Soviets collapsed, they went nuts with the chance to strip down the military and move the savings over to social spending. They initiated BRAC (which was a good idea), they initiated the cancellations of much needed replacement programs (bad idea), and they switched around the active duty/reserve assignments (a horrible idea). Now that BRAC, their program, is biting them in the ass, they are having fits. It once again shows how hypocritical Democrats are (we want to cut military spending... just make sure you cut it in someone else's state!)

As for ST, the attempt was made to equate the Republican's view of closing bases as "for the good of the country and the military and will make our military stronger and more efficient.", while a similar Democratic proposal as being seen as ""See! Told you! they hate the military and want to cut their funding!" That would be the case if both sides had a similar track history of supporting/not supporting the military, which is not the case.

 

[SmallTown]

As for ST, the attempt was made to equate the Republican's view of closing bases as "for the good of the country and the military and will make our military stronger and more efficient.", while a similar Democratic proposal as being seen as ""See! Told you! they hate the military and want to cut their funding!" That would be the case if both sides had a similar track history of supporting/not supporting the military, which is not the case.

And again, you just proved my point about the republican reaction. Maybe it is because of the dems history, maybe it because of the republican views on things, but NOBODY can sit here and honestly say that if the dems proposed the same plan, the republicans would not be foaming at the mouth. Maybe it is the dems fault that it would generate the reaction, still doesn't change the point that this would be the reaction.

 

[vraiblonde]

this would be the reaction.

You're probably right. I can only speak for myself, but I don't trust Democrats when it comes to defense. Over and over, they've proved that they either don't understand the importance of national defense or they just don't care.

So I agree with your statement. The Republicans can squirrel around with our military bases and I'll assume that they know what they're doing. If the Democrats start doing it, I assume that their goal is to weaken our defense system.

 

[FromTexas]

And again, you just proved my point about the republican reaction. Maybe it is because of the dems history, maybe it because of the republican views on things, but NOBODY can sit here and honestly say that if the dems proposed the same plan, the republicans would not be foaming at the mouth. Maybe it is the dems fault that it would generate the reaction, still doesn't change the point that this would be the reaction.

You are wrong, ST, because BRAC was not done by this President or by Republicans to begin with. Its part of an ongoing process that for the most part, tries to keep politics out of it. Yet, the people who agreed to this process (dems and reps) will now act out to save their own. However, BRAC only has about a 10-15% change rate between its initial release and final approval. You can't say Republicans did this now, because they didn't. Just as it couldn't be said Democrats did this now, because they didn't. The BRAC process was agreed upon a long time ago.

 

[Bruzilla]

Maybe it is the dems fault that it would generate the reaction, still doesn't change the point that this would be the reaction.

Maybe it'll help if we change the context of the discussion. Two men are sitting in the stands of a youth soccer game with cameras with zoom lenses on them, and they're both taking pictures of the kids while they play. One of the other parents looks at the guys and says "which player is yours?" and the picture taker on the right says "number 24, that's my son Joey and he's the number one goalie in the county, and I'm taking pictures for his scrapbook." The picture taker on the left says "none of them. I'm just a convicted child molester and I'm taking pictures of all the kids' crotches so I can remember them tonight." The crowd reacts and tosses the molester from the field after bashing him in the face and smashing his camera. They were both doing the same thing, just for different reasons, one for the betterment of the kids and one for the detriment. Is the reaction of the parents "knee jerk" of based on the history of the guy who invoked the reaction?

Now back to the situation at hand. The Democrats have done very little since the mid-1960s to help our national defense situation. In fact, they have taken many proactive measures to damage it. The same can not be said about the Republicans. So, why should people view the actions of the Republicans, in regards to national defense issues, in the same light as those of Democrats?

And not to be playing the role of the Hypocracy Police, but who are the ones that are always quick-on-the-draw to attack the motivations of Republicans whenever they make a proposal that helps or hurts issues that are viewed as key Democratic issues??? Do you laugh about that at work too?

 

[Bruzilla]

Over and over, they've proved that they either don't understand the importance of national defense or they just don't care.

I don't think their view of national defense is based on either of those. Placing the issue in historical context, it wasn't until the early 1970s that I think an argument could be made that Democrats were on the wrong side of the national defense issue. So what caused the change? I feel that it was not Vietnam, but the Cold War.

We know now that the Soviet Union was the primary sponsor of just about every anti-war group back then. They invested heavilly in peace movements, not to promote peace but to lead Americans to not want to fight. The Soviets were stepping up their aggressive actions while the US was being urged to "give peace a chance." What became of most of these peace protesters? They went into the DNC, and they brought the
"beating the swords into shares" mentality with them. They honestly believe that it's better to give money away to the poor, to the unemployed, to the unwed mothers, etc., than to spend it on weapons... which is exactly what any enemy would love to see its enemy do.

I think that Democrats understand the importance of national defense, even that they care about it. But they've been raised with the "give peace a chance" mindset and not the "defend America" mindset that most of our parents had. They honestly believe that being meek and mild is the best way to deter an aggressor, probably because they think that everyone thinks like they do (a theory that I think is well supported by their views on a lot of issues.)

 

[FromTexas]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has proposed closing 33 major military installations in the United States and reorganizing hundreds of others. Tens of thousands of troops in Europe and East Asia are expected to come home.

From the news... again. BRAC is not a proposal by Rumsfeld. It is a process instituted by Congress.

 

[SmallTown]

From the news... again. BRAC is not a proposal by Rumsfeld. It is a process instituted by Congress.

From everything I have been reading, the department of defense (the ones who should actually know about the military) proposes. It then goes to Bush. If he approves, then it goes to congress for Approval.