Obama: "I'm going to eliminate three Departments -- Commerce, and, um..."

[Aeson]

It's like you've already won a Domination victory and now you're just playing more turns for no purpose. It's time to end the world already.

We could at least build some gargantuan phallic object to "ride into the heavens"

[Aeson]

You won the Cold War: but what of Russia? Or China? Latin America? Or the web of rivalry, hatred, revolution and war in the Middle East today and in the future? These issues and threats matter to you and to your future prosperity. You may not be living in the period known as Cold War anymore but that doesn't mean you should stop thinking strategically.

It's ridiculous to propose that our increased military spending since the end of the Cold War has been justified. We went from worrying about world annihilation and the second most powerful military ever ... to worrying about some guys in caves who had already blown their wad ... and somehow came to the conclusion we needed to spend more to combat the second than we needed for the first.

[Sava]

It's ridiculous to propose that our increased military spending since the end of the Cold War has been justified.

I'd rather be on the side with the strongest military. I don't trust anybody in this country, let alone people in other countries. Human beings tend to behave themselves a bit more when held at gunpoint.

[Zevico]

It's ridiculous to propose that our increased military spending since the end of the Cold War has been justified. We went from worrying about world annihilation and the second most powerful military ever ... to worrying about some guys in caves who had already blown their wad ... and somehow came to the conclusion we needed to spend more to combat the second than we needed for the first.

The end of the Cold War was a strategic success. So what?

Defence spending has to be related to your strategic needs. In order to decide what those needs are, examine the foreign policy priorities of other nations. Sometimes the threat of war or war itself may even be necessary to defend your interests. Take that into account. Don't make snap decision, based on instinct and feeling, which are "phew, the Cold War's over, we can all go back to bed now." Instead, argue about the specific programs, specific issues, specific commitments. It's right to question defence spending and it's right to argue for cutbacks if those cutbacks are necessary. Equally it's right to argue for investments when they're necessary.

But whether cuts or expansion is necessary is a question that shouldn't be answered in the abstract, as if defence spending just ought to be cut simply because the Cold War is over and the winner should get a prize and a vacation while the loser should get his just deserts.

[notyoueither]

Can't you write concisely? There's a lot of garbage in there meant to obfuscate that you really don't know what you're talking about. If you want to add value to the conversation, start by doing so yourself. Preferably without posting obviously biased articles of dubious accuracy. Just saying.

You could try that yourself, instead of just sniping at people you disagree with.

Just saying.

[notyoueither]

And my point is that people need to eat in order to survive. But they can't just eat bread and water and expect to be healthy. They need protein and vitamins among other nutrients. Failure to realize this is distracting the issue. Tomorrow maybe Tuesday, but only on a Monday. But never on a Friday. Yet, some people insist posting these kinds of ideas, without considering their consequences. Once one does, it only leads to a series of problems. All of which I am nobly trying to solve here.

You've solved what, exactly? Posting pablum on the internet did what?

[Dinner]

It would be a small but positive change. I'm sure it is mostly showmanship to highlight how the Republicans will obstruct everything though; that way he can say he asked for the power to shrink the government but Republicans opposed even that. I'm positive there are indeed some large cuts to departments and organizations which can be made but I don't think he'll actually make any of them.

On the upside there are only a grand total of 13 more Federal employees today than when Obama took office so he has kept the number down.

[Aeson]

The end of the Cold War was a strategic success. So what?

So ... we face much less in the way of opposition now, but spend much more than we ever did before. It's absurd. Only an idiot wouldn't be able to figure this out.

[DaShi]

You've solved what, exactly? Posting pablum on the internet did what?

It's over your head, apparently. Like most things are. You're getting too much attention.

[DaShi]

The end of the Cold War was a strategic success. So what?

Defence spending has to be related to your strategic needs. In order to decide what those needs are, examine the foreign policy priorities of other nations. Sometimes the threat of war or war itself may even be necessary to defend your interests. Take that into account. Don't make snap decision, based on instinct and feeling, which are "phew, the Cold War's over, we can all go back to bed now." Instead, argue about the specific programs, specific issues, specific commitments. It's right to question defence spending and it's right to argue for cutbacks if those cutbacks are necessary. Equally it's right to argue for investments when they're necessary.

But whether cuts or expansion is necessary is a question that shouldn't be answered in the abstract, as if defence spending just ought to be cut simply because the Cold War is over and the winner should get a prize and a vacation while the loser should get his just deserts.

So what are the specifics? Aeson makes a very good point, there was little justification for US bases in Europe after the cold war. Nothing you said changes that point. It's like your reciting a manual for policy and thinking that's enough to counter someone's argument for what was a bad policy.

[giblets]

If you say something he disagrees with he'll just repeat that the world is a complicated and every single US government policy should be evaluated on its own merits. Never mind that the US federal government is a vast institution with thousands of programs, you're not allowed to make any generalizations about its policies.

[DaShi]

Exactly, that's why I made the post the NYE didn't understand (I know). It's all technically correct (except the self-aggrandizing part ), but contributes nothing to the conversation while trying to sound "informed."

[Felch]

Seriously, I've never seen anyone with such poor judgement make so many ill-informed posts with the very intent of making a judgement against others. Well, except for Ben, Hera, and Kid, but I covered that already.

Even when I agree with you, your spiteful tone sickens me. Ben, Hera, and Kid are stubborn and ill-informed, but I'd rather be stuck on a desert island with them for a year, than with you for a day. Smoke some ****ing weed already.

[DinoDoc]

No matter what, I'm sure Republicans will find some way to oppose it.

After pissing them off with so-called "recess" appointments, I would go with this.

[Dinner]

Even Gingrinch said the courts would uphold those recess appointments. It was clear the Republicans had just spent three years being obstructionist for no reason other than to be obstructionist. Having one guy there once a week for less than one minute to bang a gavel and then immediately bang it again without anything getting done does not a Congress in session make.