Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

1535456585997

Posts

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2012
    Dashui wrote: »
    Has this been posted yet? I love it:

    http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/
    At a meeting with the “Moms For Mitt” group yesterday outside Philadelphia, PA, Ann Romney was asked her opinion on Lilly Ledbetter and equal pay for equal work regarding women’s employment. Without hesitation she responded with another question that seemed to shock even the most staunch conservatives in the room.

    “Why should women be paid equal to men? Men have been in the working world a lot longer and deserve to be paid at a higher rate. Heck, I’m a working mom and I’m not paid a dime. I depend on my husband to provide for me and my family, as should most women… and if a woman does work, she should be happy just to be out there in the working world and quit complaining that she’s not making as much as her male counterparts. I mean really, all this wanting to be equal nonsense is going to be detrimental to the future of women everywhere. Who’s going to want to hire a woman, or for that matter, even marry a woman who thinks she is the same, if not better than a man at any job. It’s almost laughable. C’mon now ladies, are you with me on this?”

    After Ann Romney finished speaking, there was an awkward silence in the air with a smattering of applause that seemed to come from a forced obligation to support their future party nominee’s wife.

    How about single moms, you clueless entitled twit?

    Edit:
    Just an FYI for everyone in case it wasn't obvious:
    Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.

    I hate it that satire is more believable than life.

    Stop the world, I want to get off.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Dashui wrote: »
    Has this been posted yet? I love it:

    http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/
    At a meeting with the “Moms For Mitt” group yesterday outside Philadelphia, PA, Ann Romney was asked her opinion on Lilly Ledbetter and equal pay for equal work regarding women’s employment. Without hesitation she responded with another question that seemed to shock even the most staunch conservatives in the room.

    “Why should women be paid equal to men? Men have been in the working world a lot longer and deserve to be paid at a higher rate. Heck, I’m a working mom and I’m not paid a dime. I depend on my husband to provide for me and my family, as should most women… and if a woman does work, she should be happy just to be out there in the working world and quit complaining that she’s not making as much as her male counterparts. I mean really, all this wanting to be equal nonsense is going to be detrimental to the future of women everywhere. Who’s going to want to hire a woman, or for that matter, even marry a woman who thinks she is the same, if not better than a man at any job. It’s almost laughable. C’mon now ladies, are you with me on this?”

    After Ann Romney finished speaking, there was an awkward silence in the air with a smattering of applause that seemed to come from a forced obligation to support their future party nominee’s wife.

    How about single moms, you clueless entitled twit?

    (It's a fake quote @Just_Bri_Thanks)

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    It's not really as simple as saying that America can defend itself but cut off forward projection since pretty much the entirety of world policy relies on American military power.

    Like, NATO or UN action? Yeah, that's American action.

    I don't see the problem in maintaining a military capable of fighting in two theatres. There are ways to cut down before that ability is hurt since our military is so large, but I rather like having overwhelming military force at our disposal.

    And, while China is not a threat to us, that's because of our forward projection ability. Chinese-American relations would be a lot more tense if there wasn't such a massive gulf between our military power. I don't want to Fox News this, but the reason that there isn't a Neo Cold War going on is the fact that if China pulls shit we would demolish them is a big contributor to that status quo.

    I think this is where we enter the "AMFE's Crazy Conservative Views" area of discussion.

    Well sure China would get away with a lot more without that gulf, but the gulf in military capability isn't what keeps China and America from going to war, it's the fact that our economies are like Siamese twins that can't be seperated without killing the other one

    Yeah this. It would be economic warfare before it became anything else, as China's entire industrial boom has been on the back of american demand for cheap goods.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    It's not really as simple as saying that America can defend itself but cut off forward projection since pretty much the entirety of world policy relies on American military power.

    Like, NATO or UN action? Yeah, that's American action.

    I don't see the problem in maintaining a military capable of fighting in two theatres. There are ways to cut down before that ability is hurt since our military is so large, but I rather like having overwhelming military force at our disposal.

    And, while China is not a threat to us, that's because of our forward projection ability. Chinese-American relations would be a lot more tense if there wasn't such a massive gulf between our military power. I don't want to Fox News this, but the reason that there isn't a Neo Cold War going on is the fact that if China pulls shit we would demolish them is a big contributor to that status quo.

    I think this is where we enter the "AMFE's Crazy Conservative Views" area of discussion.

    Well sure China would get away with a lot more without that gulf, but the gulf in military capability isn't what keeps China and America from going to war, it's the fact that our economies are like Siamese twins that can't be seperated without killing the other one

    Yeah this. It would be economic warfare before it became anything else, as China's entire industrial boom has been on the back of american demand for cheap goods.

    Why is that better?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Yeah, I shot from the hip and then continued reading the thread.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Anywho,

    It's not what keeps us from going to war, but its what keeps a new cold war from happening. It is why the Republicans are wrong with all their fear mongering and shit.

    But like I said,

    AMFE's Crazy Conservative Views start here.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Anywho,

    It's not what keeps us from going to war, but its what keeps a new cold war from happening. It is why the Republicans are wrong with all their fear mongering and shit.

    But like I said,

    AMFE's Crazy Conservative Views start here.

    If it makes you feel any better, of all the Crazy Conservative Views™ someone can hold, wanting to hold off reducing military personnel as a last step is probably one of the more reasonable ones.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Just an FYI for everyone in case it wasn't obvious:
    Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.

    I hate it that satire is more believable than life.

    Stop the world, I want to get off.

    That was terrible satire, in my opinion. It was presented way too realistically, and with an editorial slant that has no place in the genre.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Basically, my views on military cuts is that they should go to unnecessary R&D (engines we don't need taht the USAF never asked for being an example) well before we get to personnel cuts.

    Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney aren't looking out for John and Jane Soldier when they talk about increasing military spending while cutting everything else.

    It also bugs me when democrats talk about force reduction in a zero sum mode. Like, where are those thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen going to go in an already over saturated job market? And why should someone who spent a few years in the Army have higher priority over someone who didn't when it comes to a civilian job? This is just "government can't create jobs" with a fresh coat of paint and it annoys me to no end.

    The government can and should create jobs. Where are thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen going to go? If we were honestly going to stand down large portions of the military I think we should retrain them and put them to work on public works projects, from the expansion of public transportation and broadband internet penetration to the rebuilding of our national infrastructure and the renewal of our aging energy grid and power generation. Fix your bridges and roads, make sure everyone has access to cheap, fast public transportation, make America the number one country for high-speed internet access, switch 60% of our power generation needs over to nuclear, and then talk to me about what our military should be doing elsewhere. I'm all for meeting our international responsibilities, but we've put off nation-building at home for too long.

    I agree with this. This is a sensible solution to the problem.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    Basically, my views on military cuts is that they should go to unnecessary R&D (engines we don't need taht the USAF never asked for being an example) well before we get to personnel cuts.

    Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney aren't looking out for John and Jane Soldier when they talk about increasing military spending while cutting everything else.

    It also bugs me when democrats talk about force reduction in a zero sum mode. Like, where are those thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen going to go in an already over saturated job market? And why should someone who spent a few years in the Army have higher priority over someone who didn't when it comes to a civilian job? This is just "government can't create jobs" with a fresh coat of paint and it annoys me to no end.

    The government can and should create jobs. Where are thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen going to go? If we were honestly going to stand down large portions of the military I think we should retrain them and put them to work on public works projects, from the expansion of public transportation and broadband internet penetration to the rebuilding of our national infrastructure and the renewal of our aging energy grid and power generation. Fix your bridges and roads, make sure everyone has access to cheap, fast public transportation, make America the number one country for high-speed internet access, switch 60% of our power generation needs over to nuclear, and then talk to me about what our military should be doing elsewhere. I'm all for meeting our international responsibilities, but we've put off nation-building at home for too long.

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    AMFE, you're views on not cutting the military size are well justified. I mean, hell, since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a remarkable stability in the world in terms of overall military conflicts. The fact that there is a military force sitting out there, that could take on the rest of the world combined in conventional warfare, is a pretty huge deterrent to anyone but the absolute most batshit insane people taking military action.

    Even then, it only really happens between two groups that we don't have close ties with (ie, Iran vs Iraq, etc.) This is a good thing overall. Thankfully, with the exception of a minority of warhawking congressionals, the US leadership is more than happy to have a benign role in world affairs, especially post-Iraq. This does not diminish our need to maintain the military gulf that we have.

    We do need to spend smarter, and have a better budgeting system in place. We should reward our military commanders for coming in under budget, not punish them (Currently unused spending is cut from the next budget, making it a "Spend it or Lose it" system). We need to cut down on useless RnD, and pork barrel projects. The F-22 project was a major failure almost entirely because of the way it was built, with parts manufactured all over the nation at a ridiculous cost. We need to stop giving out Cost + % contracts. It should be up to the contractors to come in and bid fairly (omg Free Market!) and not scrap and re-award contracts ad naseum.

    mvrck.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    @Mvrck

    Those are the kinds of reforms I'd like to see, too.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    AMFE, you're views on not cutting the military size are well justified. I mean, hell, since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a remarkable stability in the world in terms of overall military conflicts. The fact that there is a military force sitting out there, that could take on the rest of the world combined in conventional warfare, is a pretty huge deterrent to anyone but the absolute most batshit insane people taking military action.

    Even then, it only really happens between two groups that we don't have close ties with (ie, Iran vs Iraq, etc.) This is a good thing overall. Thankfully, with the exception of a minority of warhawking congressionals, the US leadership is more than happy to have a benign role in world affairs, especially post-Iraq. This does not diminish our need to maintain the military gulf that we have.

    We do need to spend smarter, and have a better budgeting system in place. We should reward our military commanders for coming in under budget, not punish them (Currently unused spending is cut from the next budget, making it a "Spend it or Lose it" system). We need to cut down on useless RnD, and pork barrel projects. The F-22 project was a major failure almost entirely because of the way it was built, with parts manufactured all over the nation at a ridiculous cost. We need to stop giving out Cost + % contracts. It should be up to the contractors to come in and bid fairly (omg Free Market!) and not scrap and re-award contracts ad naseum.

    :^:

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    We should just retrofit all those B-52s in the desert.

    They'll probably still fly.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I become a 2nd Lt on May 6. An orderless, jobless Cyberspace Operations Officer because the USAF needs to look for Colonels to retire first due to budget woes.

    That whole guarantee'd job after graduation still stands...but it's no longer immediate. It's a nightmare.

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    On the military restructuring thing. When the scale back on troops, they don't exactly fire anyone, it's usually a combination of recruiting less people and attrition. It still has the downside of be one less area keeping the unemployment numbers down but at least they aren't firing people.

    Also the idea behind the Obama's military restructuring is fairly sound IMO. Scale back on the aspects that A) we currently don't need to maintain our status and B) that we can train up in a short time. Then focus the budget on maintaining the force projection we want, maintain and building things that we can't acquire in a short time period (heavy equip [ex tanks, aircraft ships] & specialized units that take a long time to build), while also have the personnel in place to quickly train up needed personnel if the shit hits the fan. I can't remember how long it takes train basic infantry, but with good force projection, you should have enough time for it in the event that sometimes initiates shit against us.

    I'm just hoping they'll get to work on scaling back some of the privatization that is costing us money. I'm pretty sure we've been ripped off with some of the R&D that was kept around as pork. I'd have to read up on the various R&D where that has happened but I'm wondering if giving the military a veto-like power when it comes to actually doing R&D and the implementation of R&D projects would help any. I'm thinking that might be a mixed bag since they might opt to always fund all projects since Congress is giving them the money but cut out the shit that we saw with the F22 project (as in the F22s still get build but the assembly is done in the most cost effective manner rather than the most pork effective manner. Things like private security and mercenaries, well we really shouldn't be spending any money on that shit because we're training troops who could do that stuff.

    -As for cookiegate. Mitt better be careful, piss off 7-11 too much and they could prove to be the most pro-Obama and anti-GOP platform this fall. They numerous location, open 24/7. All they need to do is stop carrying pro-GOP literature and start displaying lots of pro-Obama, pro-Democrat and anti-republican literature in easy to see spots for low prices. Not to mention they could start training the cashiers to be effective at running get out the vote drives while ringing up the gas & over-priced goods that people purchase from them. :rotate:

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    I agree that overwhelming force is nice for deterring major conflicts. It's also nice for every other nation on the planet, and we pay for it for them.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I agree that overwhelming force is nice for deterring major conflicts. It's also nice for every other nation on the planet, and we pay for it for them.

    So what's your workable, non hyperbolic solution Mr "All We Need are Nukes and SpecOps"? : P

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I agree that overwhelming force is nice for deterring major conflicts. It's also nice for every other nation on the planet, and we pay for it for them.

    I think too many people think warfare is like a game of Risk and they just need to hold out for the turn where they can cash in their cards for more reinforcements.

    steam_sig.png
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I agree that overwhelming force is nice for deterring major conflicts. It's also nice for every other nation on the planet, and we pay for it for them.

    I think too many people think warfare is like a game of Risk and they just need to hold out for the turn where they can cash in their cards for more reinforcements.

    If that were true Australia would be the dominant military power in the world.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I agree that overwhelming force is nice for deterring major conflicts. It's also nice for every other nation on the planet, and we pay for it for them.

    I think too many people think warfare is like a game of Risk and they just need to hold out for the turn where they can cash in their cards for more reinforcements.

    If that were true Australia would be the dominant military power in the world.

    They don't have Indonesia, yet.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I agree that overwhelming force is nice for deterring major conflicts. It's also nice for every other nation on the planet, and we pay for it for them.

    I think too many people think warfare is like a game of Risk and they just need to hold out for the turn where they can cash in their cards for more reinforcements.

    If that were true Australia would be the dominant military power in the world.

    I don't know, while easy to defend you only get two soldiers for the whole continent. And if you're playing by the rules those soldiers have to go in Australia so they can't help you anywhere else.

    steam_sig.png
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    I've kinda got a biased view on it because of my profession, but i agree, that for good or ill, Americas ability to project force is a necessity to current world stability.

    That being said, the Army, and armed forces in general are currently scaling back through numerous means.

    First the Army is cutting back about 50,000 soldiers. Not through direct firing, but reducing the availability of reenlistment options for jobs that are over strength. Those that want to reenlist have to perform better than their peers. Weak performance means you will not have the option to reenlist, done on a case by case basis by their commander.

    Also, it's much easier to kick out soldiers who have patterns of misconduct. You used to need a long, properly documented counseling packet to prove a pattern, now it can be as few as two or even one in certain cases to force a solder out of service.

    Basic training (8 weeks for normal soldiers and 12 for infantry) will also be raising their standards back to prewar levels.

    Promotion criteria has gotten stricter as well as how long a person can stay at a certain rank without promotion before being removed from service.

    That's all I can think of off the top of my head. None of this is really new, I joined before 9-11, so it's just going back to how he Army was prewar levels. Naturally a lot of the stricter rules were lightened due to keeping up wartime numbers.

    I can't speak from a wasted penny standpoint, I'm more of rubber meets the road kinda guy. I do know that some cocks in Congress thought it would be funny to gut our retirement by a fuckton as well as push back when we start receiving benefits. I don't think it has been officially shot down yet. I don't know about you guys, but I personally wouldn't fuck with the money (and family by proxy) of 500,000 war vets. It would be a very bad idea IMO.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I agree that overwhelming force is nice for deterring major conflicts. It's also nice for every other nation on the planet, and we pay for it for them.

    I think too many people think warfare is like a game of Risk and they just need to hold out for the turn where they can cash in their cards for more reinforcements.

    If that were true Australia would be the dominant military power in the world.

    I don't know, while easy to defend you only get two soldiers for the whole continent. And if you're playing by the rules those soldiers have to go in Australia so they can't help you anywhere else.

    No, you hide in Australia and just build up and build up and then start working your way out like a damn supervirus.

  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012

    dbrock270 on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »

    'I think there's still some blood left in this stone!'

    bar-cc-1.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    People realize that the reason all those people don't pay taxes is because they're too poor, right?

    Like, there's nothing to take from them.

    That's the bigger problem.

    WHY can such a large percentage exist where they cannot pay taxes, not HOW can we raise their taxes so I don't have to pay more.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    well maybe if they paid taxes and were therefore poorer I would be more inclined to help them.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    People realize that the reason all those people don't pay taxes is because they're too poor, right?

    Like, there's nothing to take from them.

    That's the bigger problem.

    WHY can such a large percentage exist where they cannot pay taxes, not HOW can we raise their taxes so I don't have to pay more.


    Well, they do pay taxes, on everything they buy and consume. But yeah, I hate that god damn statistic every time I hear it because it's so blatantly ignorant of a simple reality. They're poor as dirt.

    And I bet many of them would have no problem paying taxes if it meant a good steady job with decent wages so they could support their families and themselves.

    Dark_Side on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    People realize that the reason all those people don't pay taxes is because they're too poor, right?

    Like, there's nothing to take from them.

    That's the bigger problem.

    WHY can such a large percentage exist where they cannot pay taxes, not HOW can we raise their taxes so I don't have to pay more.

    Oh hell yes, I'm absolutely sure the people saying it realize exactly what they're saying. But the GOP really wants statements like "45 percent don't pay income taxes" to disperse out into the public discourse

    bar-cc-1.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    People realize that the reason all those people don't pay taxes is because they're too poor, right?

    Like, there's nothing to take from them.

    That's the bigger problem.

    WHY can such a large percentage exist where they cannot pay taxes, not HOW can we raise their taxes so I don't have to pay more.


    Well, they do pay taxes, on everything they buy and consume. But yeah, I hate that god damn statistic every time I hear it because it's so blatantly ignorant of a simple reality. They're poor as dirt.

    Indeed, but I mean specifically income taxes, as did J Cockburger C Untman.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I really hope the left hammers back the Tea Party's walled message of "NO NEW TAXES" every time the 45% bullshit statistic is brought up.

    At least Cantor specifically mentioned income tax (I question his numbers though, as I would out of the mouth of any of his ilk), but too many just spout off the 'they don't pay taxes'

    MetroidZoid on
    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    The dangers of campaigning on facebook.

    7w7yj.jpg

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I've kinda got a biased view on it because of my profession, but i agree, that for good or ill, Americas ability to project force is a necessity to current world stability.

    No, it is not.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Romney's giving the commencement address at Liberty University next month. That's Falwell's school, for reference.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    @Spool32

    I'd like you to expand on number three from your list there because all evidence is that the far right has the GOP by the balls. Case in point, how many times has Boehner's office floated a sensible compromise but when Cantor gets wind of it there's a "meeting between the Speaker and Conservative leadership" and all of a sudden that compromise is unthinkable.

    Mitt Romney is not a man I believe can stand up to anything. He couldn't even tell Limbaugh he was off base for attacking a law student. He will do and say whatever he needs to to get people to vote for him.

    Romney as president with a Democrat majority in Congress, that probably won't be so bad. Romney as president with the current Congress? Hello rubber stamp for the Tea Party agenda.

    The far right is uncontrolable because they don't think they owe shit to anyone, which is why Boehner can't corral them in the House.

    Also the President has done plenty outside of "politics". Also, why should someone who chooses to work for the government and work to improve citizens lives be dismissed as "not real work"?

    To tackle the also: experience as a boss is not the same as experience on a board or as an organizer or a law firm drone or even a professor. Being President was the first experience Obama had running a team or being a boss, and I prefer to have a President who isn't learning as he goes.

    So you're voting for Obama? After all, he has 4 years of experience being president. Seems pretty relevant to the job of being president for another 4 years.

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    kKcIQ.png
    What a silly goose.

    Would it be bad taste to start getting in politicians' faces about things that happened to them in the past that was out of their control?

    "BDSM is such a disgraceful scar on American society. People whipping, hitting, electrocuting each other for sexual 'pleasure.' BUT I'M SURE JOHN MCCAIN IS INTO THAT."

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Mvrck wrote: »
    It should be up to the contractors to come in and bid fairly (omg Free Market!) and not scrap and re-award contracts ad naseum.

    It already is up to the contractors to bid fairly, for the most part. Proposal writers aren't psychics. Shit happens, requirements change, and suddenly you need more money to make it happen. That's just how R&D works.

    The contracting process needs reforms, but removing cost+ isn't one of them. A more effective rating system, and a more effective means for contract officers to bar known parasites from bids is what's in order.

    [edit] Sorry, you said cost+%. Those actually are incredibly stupid.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
    Automata-Sg.png
  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    kKcIQ.png
    What a silly goose.

    Would it be bad taste to start getting in politicians' faces about things that happened to them in the past that was out of their control?

    "BDSM is such a disgraceful scar on American society. People whipping, hitting, electrocuting each other for sexual 'pleasure.' BUT I'M SURE JOHN MCCAIN IS INTO THAT."

    What is McCain even referencing?

    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    I thought it had something to do with Romney's dog on the car roof, but then I remembered McCain's talking to Obama and I wrote it off as senile dementia.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
This discussion has been closed.