A thread for Democrats Only

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 116 of 725

PREV PAGE 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 NEXT PAGE

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:29 AM

I have explained it, re-explained it, and re-re-explained it, well over a dozen times.

Anybody who doesn't get it BY NOW is an idiot.

Like Jack-shit.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:30 AM

Monday, May 7, 2018 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So ... what do I propose?

Closing down a lot of military bases, mothballing our useless fleets of destroyers, and shuttering expensive military projects. Aside from an EMP or cyberattack, there's simply no master-military stroke, ie NCBW, that an enemy can launch that will not ultimately circle the globe and bite them in the ass. Ramping up doomsday weapons lethality and numbers is a race to the edge of a cliff. NOBODY wins, even if one side decimates the other as they both fall all the way down to the bottom.

Now, a lot of young people from flyover country join the military because it's the only steady job around.

I propose we put our military to better use - we teach these men and women a trade or three, like welding, carpentry, heavy machinery operating, machining, nursing, radiology- pulmonary- EKG-technician, electrical installation ... etc. And then we put them to work clearing forest overgrowth and underbrush, planting new forests, building artificial reefs to protect our shores from storm surges, building roads and bridges, creating housing in slum areas, caring for people in underserved areas. And so on. The list is only limited by your grasp of all the things that need to be done.

THIS IS STEP ONE paid for with existing taxes, repurposed

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:31 AM

Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, I have read neither Marx nor Engels. And not only have I NOT proposed a workers utopia, I haven't called for a redistribution of wealth. All I've proposed so far is a re-purposing of tax dollars already collected.

Since, AS ALWAYS, your post neither accurately portrays mine nor responds to it, I will assume that you're strawmanning (lying) and/ or changing the subject. AS ALWAYS.

Do you think you can learn to discuss anything with anyone with at least a small amount of honesty? Or is that completely beyond you? And I have to ask - are you really the sane one in your family?

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:32 AM

Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, SECOND - here are the questions you need to address to respond to my post: what do you think of re-purposing the military to 1) provide valuable skills to the members, 2) provide jobs, and 3) perform important unaddressed tasks to society and the nation?

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:34 AM

Friday, May 11, 2018 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I had a VERY SPECIFIC suggestion as to how to improve people's lives without trying to create a worker's utopia or have massive redistribution of wealth, and it involved re-purposing the military. SECOND has managed to not actually discuss my post at all.

But it does certainly snark and troll at every post.

SECOND is a troll.

So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:35 AM

Saturday, May 12, 2018 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So here I am, making a simple suggestion that we redirect the military - from pointless, money-wasting adventures overseas and boondoggle military projects, to useful, value-producing work at home.

It seems a modest proposal, and non-partisan, in that neither side has any financial or cultural reason to be more against it than the other.

And SECOND doesn't seem to have anything negative to say about it, because he has done nothing but ignore, mis-direct, misrepresent, and post ad hominems - ie, troll. It looks like he's doing everything BUT address the point.

But I'm curious what other people think.

Set aside your preconceptions about whether or not it might be implemented.

Would it work?

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:35 AM

Saturday, May 12, 2018 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You missed one important aspect of redirecting the military proper - jobs.

"The projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for fiscal year 2017 was 1,281,900 servicemembers, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components."

The military proper is a total of roughly 1.3 million jobs. That's 1.3 million people not receiving unemployment.

Thanks for not answering the question.

Perhaps someone else could chime in, since SECOND can't address the actual topic.

We could redirect the military - from pointless, money-wasting adventures overseas, to useful, value-producing work at home.

It seems a modest proposal, and non-partisan, in that neither side has any financial or cultural reason to be more against it than the other. Set aside your preconceptions about whether or not it might be implemented.

Would it work? Is this a way to improve the value the members of this society receive from the society, within the bounds of our current economic system?

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:36 AM

Saturday, May 12, 2018 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"just try to put 1.3 million soldiers patrolling up and down the streets of the country"

I wasn't thinking of any military-style work. Just work on public lands like restoration and conservation, or for public projects like infrastructure, or in public hospitals in underserved areas.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:37 AM

Sunday, May 13, 2018 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Since we're already spending the money for the military, it makes sense to simply give them different assignments.

As for this being a "good job", "the initial monthly pay for the lowest rank, E-1, is $1,531.50 per month" or somewhat less than $6.50 an hour. And then, you live on base, go to bed when they tell you to, get up when they tell you to, run when they tell you to, eat what they give you, and so on. On top of that, they have some very specific rules covering things you and I might think of as our personal life, like no adultery. Violating that, and other rules they have, will get you kicked out.

There's one individual advantage to my plan above and beyond military service and above a private job, which is the training to get good skills. A potential social advantage is that females may be more attracted to a non-combat army, and would acquire weapons expertise, putting them in a less disadvantaged position to men re guns in civilian life.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:38 AM

Monday, May 14, 2018 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:
One thing women aren't attracted to are men that make $6.50 an hour. That's a fact.
Uh ... what does that have to do with anything? What point are you addressing? None that I made.
Quote:
First of all, the training is worthless if those skills are learning things that could only get you a job making $6.50 an hour.
That's why I specified skills such as carpentry, electrician, heavy machinery operation, various medical technician jobs etc. It pays to read what people post so you don't waste both our time going over silly arguments.
Quote:
... we'd be massively undercutting what the pay for that work should be with our own taxpayer dollars.
Which is why I specified public works type jobs, and service in public institutions, that are not now being performed. Again ... read what people post.
Quote:
At that rate of pay, nobody would do it. It's hard work. Sometimes even grueling work. I can't think of a single person who would do it for $6.50 an hour when they could go to Walmart and push carts for almost twice as much money.
But people join the army and put health, limb, brain, their individual identity, and life on the line for that rate of pay. I'm not seeing your point on this either.

Quote:
Pay grade for E-1 in 2018 is reportedly 1,638 per month.
http://work.chron.com/much-enlisted-army-soldiers-make-28798.html for my figure. Note that my figure was for 2014, not 2018.
Quote:
Which would be about $9.45/hr at 40 hours/week.
But you are on base at the army's beck and call and on their schedule 24/7. *IF* your time 'at work' was limited to 40 hours per week, it would be about 9.40 an hour for an average roughly 30.5-day month.
Quote:
Maybe your stoner bimbos cannot comprehend, ...
Why are you arguing that point with me? I didn't make it. Six did.
My point was that if you are married you cannot fool around. IF YOU ARE SINGLE you can't fool around with a married person either. Both are adultery and will get you canned.
Some people might find those 'hey, it's MY personal life' restrictions will cramp their style.

Quote:
This would all be a lot different if we were talking about putting military to work in non military infrastructure jobs at home.
I for one, would not support the free room and board for these people on taxpayer dime. It would be far too close to having a standing army on our own shores.
Some people* would argue that, Constitutionally, we're not supposed to have a standing army at all. (*This has never been addressed in the courts.) And yet, through the miracle of reauthorization, we get to re-support the military every two years, as per the Constitutional limit.

When it comes to deployment, the army is not supposed to be deployed within US borders and take action against citizens (Posse Comitatus act, not part of the Constitution) although Eisenhower used an exception during school desegregation. I agree with the act, which is why I would call this non-military service 'training', not 'deployment'.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

PREV PAGE 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 NEXT PAGE