PureFodder
Member
+225|6732

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:


Your way fucking off buddy. Look it up, read, then try again.
Holy shit, my eyes just melted with the sheer ridiculousness of the content of his post. Especially with the over-the-top exclamation marks and question marks. Not to mention the Caps. You know Dezert, you'd do yourself a big favour if you would just type normally. It might make your insane rantings somewhat more understandable.
But if they had successfully completed the star-wars program, just think of the number of ICBMs that it would have been able to knock out. Assuming it was 100% effective it would have stopped a grand total of 0 and counting...

Good use of money that.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7048|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Which technically means he didnt decrease spending, the GDP did.
Yes we can see that in the image Bertser posted. I don't think anyone is advocating "let's just make a deficit". He was able to maintain the balance. No matter how you look at it the defense funding increased. He could have placed those funds in other programs, he picked defense. Kennedy stated numerous time that the US was falling behind the Soviets in military spending and he encouraged devoting discretionary funds to be routed into national defense.
That's why I also mentioned that he decreased military expenditure as a percentage of discretionary spending. He dedicated a smaller portion of the budget to the military than his predecessors. Then Nixon came to power and started increasing it.
Kennedy actually criticized Republicans for a "missile gap" to open by not matching Soviet defense spending. Sputnik anyone? Kennedy continuously asked for more military spending to match the Soviets, that a fact my man.

QUESTION. Senator, what do you propose to do to improve the international situation?

KENNEDY. I think we ought to strengthen the armed forces. I don't know whether it's going to be possible for us to appropriate an additional amount of money in the special session of Congress. I hope to talk about that with Senator Johnson tomorrow. Senator Jackson is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has done a great deal of work on that. I think he would agree, and he said so on many occasions on the Senate floor, that we should do it. I don't think we should wait until next year. I am not satisfied with the relative position of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the Chinese in military strength. We have seen the great developments in the Polaris in recent days, but we only have a limited amount of Polarises that will be available in 1961 and 1962. I think this program, the commitment which we have made to maintain an airborne alert - all these will require additional funds.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,073|7219|PNW

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Reagan was a shit president.
Don't you mean shitty, if you're going to call him that? What is this "shit this" and "shit that" that I keep hearing people use in conversation?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-24 14:14:25)

Kurazoo
Pheasant Plucker
+440|7131|West Yorkshire, U.K
My parents told me he was ace
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Yes we can see that in the image Bertser posted. I don't think anyone is advocating "let's just make a deficit". He was able to maintain the balance. No matter how you look at it the defense funding increased. He could have placed those funds in other programs, he picked defense. Kennedy stated numerous time that the US was falling behind the Soviets in military spending and he encouraged devoting discretionary funds to be routed into national defense.
That's why I also mentioned that he decreased military expenditure as a percentage of discretionary spending. He dedicated a smaller portion of the budget to the military than his predecessors. Then Nixon came to power and started increasing it.
Kennedy actually criticized Republicans for a "missile gap" to open by not matching Soviet defense spending. Sputnik anyone? Kennedy continuously asked for more military spending to match the Soviets, that a fact my man.

QUESTION. Senator, what do you propose to do to improve the international situation?

KENNEDY. I think we ought to strengthen the armed forces. I don't know whether it's going to be possible for us to appropriate an additional amount of money in the special session of Congress. I hope to talk about that with Senator Johnson tomorrow. Senator Jackson is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has done a great deal of work on that. I think he would agree, and he said so on many occasions on the Senate floor, that we should do it. I don't think we should wait until next year. I am not satisfied with the relative position of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the Chinese in military strength. We have seen the great developments in the Polaris in recent days, but we only have a limited amount of Polarises that will be available in 1961 and 1962. I think this program, the commitment which we have made to maintain an airborne alert - all these will require additional funds.
Perhaps that's what he believed. Which from what you say seems very likely. He didn't increase proportional spending though, which I believe is a good thing and perhaps says more about his administration than about him personally.

If you look at the correlations between defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP you can see that when it has risen, big deficits have appeared, when it has fallen, the deficit is small - or sometimes even a surplus.

Defence spending is the key to unlocking the true potential of the US economy. The US military is easily big enough. It's not big enough to police the world, but that's not its role. It is much bigger than it needs to be to defend the US, and significantly assist their allies, against any military threat whatsoever.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Reagan was a shit president.
Don't you mean shitty, if you're going to call him that? What is this "shit this" and "shit that" that I keep hearing people use in conversation?
It's perfectly acceptable grammatically.
RedTwizzler
I do it for the lulz.
+124|6984|Chicago

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

im trying really hard not to fucking lose my grip and go off on you libs..............................
Too late.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,073|7219|PNW

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Reagan was a shit president.
Don't you mean shitty, if you're going to call him that? What is this "shit this" and "shit that" that I keep hearing people use in conversation?
It's perfectly acceptable grammatically.
"Reagan was a lawnmower president. Reagan was a telephone president. Reagan was a pimple president."

Sorry, I can't see it. Not even "Reagan was a fuck president."

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-24 14:30:55)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Don't you mean shitty, if you're going to call him that? What is this "shit this" and "shit that" that I keep hearing people use in conversation?
It's perfectly acceptable grammatically.
"Reagan was a lawnmower president. Reagan was a telephone president. Reagan was a pimple president."

Sorry, I can't see it. Not even "Reagan was a fuck president."
Those aren't grammatically acceptable. Because those words can't be used like that. Shit can be used as an adjective. Look it up in a dictionary.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-24 14:36:25)

ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7096

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Don't you mean shitty, if you're going to call him that? What is this "shit this" and "shit that" that I keep hearing people use in conversation?
It's perfectly acceptable grammatically.
"Reagan was a lawnmower president. Reagan was a telephone president. Reagan was a pimple president."

Sorry, I can't see it. Not even "Reagan was a fuck president."
But shit is usable as an adjective, whereas telephone isn't.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,073|7219|PNW

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's perfectly acceptable grammatically.
"Reagan was a lawnmower president. Reagan was a telephone president. Reagan was a pimple president."

Sorry, I can't see it. Not even "Reagan was a fuck president."
Those aren't grammatically acceptable. Because those words can't be used like that. Shit can. Look it up in a dictionary.
Nope. Still not an adjective.

ghettoperson wrote:

But shit is usable as an adjective, whereas telephone isn't.
Is there some sort of unofficial use that none of my dictionaries describe, or is it just an "adjective" by common consensus?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-24 14:38:29)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7048|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's why I also mentioned that he decreased military expenditure as a percentage of discretionary spending. He dedicated a smaller portion of the budget to the military than his predecessors. Then Nixon came to power and started increasing it.
Kennedy actually criticized Republicans for a "missile gap" to open by not matching Soviet defense spending. Sputnik anyone? Kennedy continuously asked for more military spending to match the Soviets, that a fact my man.

QUESTION. Senator, what do you propose to do to improve the international situation?

KENNEDY. I think we ought to strengthen the armed forces. I don't know whether it's going to be possible for us to appropriate an additional amount of money in the special session of Congress. I hope to talk about that with Senator Johnson tomorrow. Senator Jackson is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has done a great deal of work on that. I think he would agree, and he said so on many occasions on the Senate floor, that we should do it. I don't think we should wait until next year. I am not satisfied with the relative position of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the Chinese in military strength. We have seen the great developments in the Polaris in recent days, but we only have a limited amount of Polarises that will be available in 1961 and 1962. I think this program, the commitment which we have made to maintain an airborne alert - all these will require additional funds.
Perhaps that's what he believed. Which from what you say seems very likely. He didn't increase proportional spending though, which I believe is a good thing and perhaps says more about his administration than about him personally.

If you look at the correlations between defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP you can see that when it has risen, big deficits have appeared, when it has fallen, the deficit is small - or sometimes even a surplus.

Defence spending is the key to unlocking the true potential of the US economy. The US military is easily big enough. It's not big enough to police the world, but that's not its role. It is much bigger than it needs to be to defend the US, and significantly assist their allies, against any military threat whatsoever.
I think we might be banging the same drum here. The situation was different then. He was not advocating an increase in spending to police the world. Just prior to and during his administration Americans saw the Soviets as a real threat. It wasn't until after the collapse (Reagan years) that we understood how far they were behind in technology and quality. The Soviets have always developed their military around sheer numbers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7079|949

Kmarion wrote:

I think we might be banging the same drum here. The situation was different then. He was not advocating an increase in spending to police the world. Just prior to and during his administration Americans saw the Soviets as a real threat. It wasn't until after the collapse (Reagan years) that we understood how far they were behind in technology and quality. The Soviets have always developed their military around sheer numbers.
Not to mention their (USSR) nationalistic parades where they would show off hollow missiles to their citizens
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

I think we might be banging the same drum here. The situation was different then. He was not advocating an increase in spending to police the world. Just prior to and during his administration Americans saw the Soviets as a real threat. It wasn't until after the collapse (Reagan years) that we understood how far they were behind in technology and quality. The Soviets have always developed their military around sheer numbers.
I didn't mean about policing the world during the cold war. I meant present day.

During the cold war it was understandable. But why not make big cutbacks when it was over, or even when it became apparent the Russian military was no match for the US. Why continue to increase spending on it? It makes no sense, unless it is simply to secure votes from insecure, paranoid voters.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-24 14:48:39)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7048|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

I didn't mean about policing the world during the cold war. I meant present day.
No argument there. Again the difference between a Conservative and a Neo-Con.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard