Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
AOC’s amendment, to limit US military ads, fails

#1
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 09:16 AM by StroudCrowd1.)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aocs-tw...ls-reports

Just curious if our resident leftists are all in on stunting military growth like AOC +3.
Reply

#2

Every time I see that waste of skin I think to myself. Wheres the cameras. I know we are on a nation wide episode of "Punked".
Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 
Reply

#3
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 10:09 AM by HURRICANE!!!.)

AOC is pretty much to Trump, what Trump was to Obama; simply wanting to reject every single thing the other does (whether it was a good idea or a bad idea).

Trump and AOC are pretty much the same person when it comes to thinking objectively of the ideals of your #1 opposition target.
Reply

#4

(07-31-2020, 10:05 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: AOC is pretty much to Trump, what Trump was to Obama; simply wanting to reject every single thing the other does (whether it was a good idea or a bad idea).

Trump and AOC are pretty much the same person when it comes to thinking objectively of the ideals of your #1 opposition target.

Sadly, those two encapsulate just about everyone in Washington now. There are exceptions but those are becoming increasingly rare.
Reply

#5

(07-31-2020, 10:27 AM)homebiscuit Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 10:05 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: AOC is pretty much to Trump, what Trump was to Obama; simply wanting to reject every single thing the other does (whether it was a good idea or a bad idea).

Trump and AOC are pretty much the same person when it comes to thinking objectively of the ideals of your #1 opposition target.

Sadly, those two encapsulate just about everyone in Washington now. There are exceptions but those are becoming increasingly rare.

So true --- kind of like the impeachment vote.  There is NO way all the Dems saw things 1 way and all the GOP saw it totally different --- it would be great if people could think independently, at least to a certain extent.
Reply

#6

(07-31-2020, 10:32 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 10:27 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: Sadly, those two encapsulate just about everyone in Washington now. There are exceptions but those are becoming increasingly rare.

So true --- kind of like the impeachment vote.  There is NO way all the Dems saw things 1 way and all the GOP saw it totally different --- it would be great if people could think independently, at least to a certain extent.

Thinking independently and thinking the way AOC thinks isn't in the same realm.

I have a problem with a 30 year old kid brainwashing young people who have never actually been alive during a war into thinking we don't need our military. It is dangerous.
Reply

#7
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 12:37 PM by HURRICANE!!!.)

(07-31-2020, 11:31 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 10:32 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: So true --- kind of like the impeachment vote.  There is NO way all the Dems saw things 1 way and all the GOP saw it totally different --- it would be great if people could think independently, at least to a certain extent.

Thinking independently and thinking the way AOC thinks isn't in the same realm.

I have a problem with a 30 year old kid brainwashing young people who have never actually been alive during a war into thinking we don't need our military. It is dangerous.

Agree --- she's way over the top.  I honestly wish she would stick to helping those less fortunate, given her background of growing up middle class (then actually poor upon her fathers death when she was in college), then taking a job as a bartender to help her mom (house cleaner / school bus driver) make ends meet prior to her political career taking off.  That said, she's a socialist in the truest sense so I guess it's not in her DNA to be in the center.
Reply

#8

(07-31-2020, 11:31 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 10:32 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: So true --- kind of like the impeachment vote.  There is NO way all the Dems saw things 1 way and all the GOP saw it totally different --- it would be great if people could think independently, at least to a certain extent.

Thinking independently and thinking the way AOC thinks isn't in the same realm.

I have a problem with a 30 year old kid brainwashing young people who have never actually been alive during a war into thinking we don't need our military. It is dangerous.

We've been at war since 2001.
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." - H. L. Mencken

Reply

#9

I don't understand what the problem is. If military recruiters can advertise during the ball game, why not the video game?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#10

She's a nutbag and I don't really care about ads but I'd be in favor of stunting the growth of the military. 

In fact, I'd like to shrink it.
Reply

#11
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 04:35 PM by mikesez.)

(07-31-2020, 04:10 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote: She's a nutbag and I don't really care about ads but I'd be in favor of stunting the growth of the military. 

In fact, I'd like to shrink it.

I'm for shrinking a lot of the hardware.
We won't need to build another aircraft carrier for another three decades or so.
We have enough ICBM armed submarines for constant mutual assured destruction on not only this planet, but two other planets at least.
but it seems like we have about the right number of troops.
And the coast guard is actually underfunded. those guys are the first responders to any kind of boating accidents or illegal drug trafficking, and their bridge computers are running Windows 95.
I also think we need to make the national guard a real national guard again. if you sign up for it, they should not be able to send you to foreign countries.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#12

(07-31-2020, 04:23 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 04:10 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote: She's a nutbag and I don't really care about ads but I'd be in favor of stunting the growth of the military. 

In fact, I'd like to shrink it.

I'm for shrinking a lot of the hardware.
We won't need to build another aircraft carrier for another three decades or so.
We have enough ICBM armed submarines for constant mutual assured destruction on not only this planet, but two other planets at least.
but it seems like we have about the right number of troops.
And the coast guard is actually underfunded. those guys are the first responders to any kind of boating accidents or illegal drug trafficking, and their bridge computers are running Windows 95.
I also think we need to make the national guard a real national guard again. if you sign up for it, they should not be able to send you to foreign countries.

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

1.  2 of our carriers are over 40 years old and 3 of them are over 30 years old.  They are rapidly nearing end-of-life.  I (unlike you) happened to serve on a 30 year old ship.  It's not good.

2.  The Coast Guard is not part of the DoD.  They fall under The Department of Homeland Security the same as U.S. Customs and Boarder Patrol.

3.  The National Guard is a reserve component of the military.  They can and should be able to deploy anywhere at anytime.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#13
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 06:04 PM by mikesez.)

(07-31-2020, 05:38 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 04:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: I'm for shrinking a lot of the hardware.
We won't need to build another aircraft carrier for another three decades or so.
We have enough ICBM armed submarines for constant mutual assured destruction on not only this planet, but two other planets at least.
but it seems like we have about the right number of troops.
And the coast guard is actually underfunded. those guys are the first responders to any kind of boating accidents or illegal drug trafficking, and their bridge computers are running Windows 95.
I also think we need to make the national guard a real national guard again. if you sign up for it, they should not be able to send you to foreign countries.

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

1.  2 of our carriers are over 40 years old and 3 of them are over 30 years old.  They are rapidly nearing end-of-life.  I (unlike you) happened to serve on a 30 year old ship.  It's not good.

2.  The Coast Guard is not part of the DoD.  They fall under The Department of Homeland Security the same as U.S. Customs and Boarder Patrol.

3.  The National Guard is a reserve component of the military.  They can and should be able to deploy anywhere at anytime.

1) if we abandon the five carriers that you say are over 30 years old, we would still have 14 carriers, more than every other Navy in the world combined.

2) ok. Their ships tend to be 50 and 60 years old. Regardless of which budget line item they are under, it seems that they should get more.

3) you are begging the question. My assertion is that it should not be this way, and you say I'm wrong because it is that way. One of the worst logical fallacies there is.  my point is that it should be possible to volunteer to be one of the people who responds during floods and earthquakes and hurricanes and not be liable to be forced to join in on our next foreign adventure / war of choice. of course the difference for you is you probably never saw a war you didn't like.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#14

(07-31-2020, 06:01 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 05:38 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

1.  2 of our carriers are over 40 years old and 3 of them are over 30 years old.  They are rapidly nearing end-of-life.  I (unlike you) happened to serve on a 30 year old ship.  It's not good.

2.  The Coast Guard is not part of the DoD.  They fall under The Department of Homeland Security the same as U.S. Customs and Boarder Patrol.

3.  The National Guard is a reserve component of the military.  They can and should be able to deploy anywhere at anytime.

1) if we abandon the five carriers that you say are over 30 years old, we would still have 14 carriers, more than every other Navy in the world combined.

2) ok. Their ships tend to be 50 and 60 years old. Regardless of which budget line item they are under, it seems that they should get more.

3) you are begging the question. My assertion is that it should not be this way, and you say I'm wrong because it is that way. One of the worst logical fallacies there is.  my point is that it should be possible to volunteer to be one of the people who responds during floods and earthquakes and hurricanes and not be liable to be forced to join in on our next foreign adventure / war of choice. of course the difference for you is you probably never saw a war you didn't like.

Try again snowflake.

1.  We currently only have 12 active carriers.  12 - 5 != 14.  You also have no idea what the deployment/maintenance/training/work-up cycle is for not only the ship, but the aircraft that operate on it.  One other thing to think about... the aircraft carrier is one of the reasons why we won the war in the Pacific back in WWII.

2.  We are discussing the military here, not law enforcement.

3.  The National Guard is a reserve component of the military.  Their primary job is to augment active duty units.  If one wants to volunteer to be one of the people who responds during floods, earthquakes and hurricanes perhaps the Red Cross or some other organization would be the better choice.  Trust me.  When I hear the gunfire and the explosions that take place at Camp Blanding it isn't because they are training for natural disasters.  The Air National Guard doesn't fly F-15's out of Jaxport to fight fires.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#15
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 08:52 PM by mikesez.)

(07-31-2020, 06:27 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 06:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: 1) if we abandon the five carriers that you say are over 30 years old, we would still have 14 carriers, more than every other Navy in the world combined.

2) ok. Their ships tend to be 50 and 60 years old. Regardless of which budget line item they are under, it seems that they should get more.

3) you are begging the question. My assertion is that it should not be this way, and you say I'm wrong because it is that way. One of the worst logical fallacies there is.  my point is that it should be possible to volunteer to be one of the people who responds during floods and earthquakes and hurricanes and not be liable to be forced to join in on our next foreign adventure / war of choice. of course the difference for you is you probably never saw a war you didn't like.

Try again snowflake.

1.  We currently only have 12 active carriers.  12 - 5 != 14.  You also have no idea what the deployment/maintenance/training/work-up cycle is for not only the ship, but the aircraft that operate on it.  One other thing to think about... the aircraft carrier is one of the reasons why we won the war in the Pacific back in WWII.

2.  We are discussing the military here, not law enforcement.

3.  The National Guard is a reserve component of the military.  Their primary job is to augment active duty units.  If one wants to volunteer to be one of the people who responds during floods, earthquakes and hurricanes perhaps the Red Cross or some other organization would be the better choice.  Trust me.  When I hear the gunfire and the explosions that take place at Camp Blanding it isn't because they are training for natural disasters.  The Air National Guard doesn't fly F-15's out of Jaxport to fight fires.

1) the wasp class ships carry airplanes. So they are also aircraft carriers.

2) our coast guard service members may be surprised to hear you say that they're not in the military. Law enforcement officers can typically quit at any time. Members of the coast guard are enlisted, just like our soldiers and the army, just like our sailors in the Navy. They can't quit until their contract is up. If they try, they are liable to get imprisoned.

3) I agree we need a group of part-time soldiers who are learning the same stuff that our full-time soldiers learn, and ready to go for foreign wars. But if you made me king for a day, I would call that army reserve, and Navy reserve, and air Force reserve only.  I don't understand why we need to rope our National guardsmen into that as well. and I don't think saying "go to the red Cross" is a solution either. The red Cross doesn't set up roadblocks and they don't carry weapons. The red Cross alone cannot adequately respond to natural disasters.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#16
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020, 08:44 PM by Lucky2Last.)

I was on a LHD when I was in the Marines. I was corrected when I mistakenly called it an air craft carrier, but I'll let JIB handle this.

Although, Mikesez has a point. We have plenty. Don't forget about the 56 aircraft carriers owned by the Air Force.
Reply

#17

(07-31-2020, 08:40 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I was on a LHD when I was in the Marines. I was corrected when I mistakenly called it an air craft carrier, but I'll let JIB handle this.

Although, Mikesez has a point. We have plenty. Don't forget about the 56 aircraft carriers owned by the Air Force.

When did you serve in the Marines? Right out of high school?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#18

Yup.
Reply

#19

(07-31-2020, 09:33 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Yup.

Thank you for your service.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#20

(07-31-2020, 04:23 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 04:10 PM)Senor Fantastico Wrote: She's a nutbag and I don't really care about ads but I'd be in favor of stunting the growth of the military. 

In fact, I'd like to shrink it.

I'm for shrinking a lot of the hardware.
We won't need to build another aircraft carrier for another three decades or so.
We have enough ICBM armed submarines for constant mutual assured destruction on not only this planet, but two other planets at least.
but it seems like we have about the right number of troops.
And the coast guard is actually underfunded. those guys are the first responders to any kind of boating accidents or illegal drug trafficking, and their bridge computers are running Windows 95.
I also think we need to make the national guard a real national guard again. if you sign up for it, they should not be able to send you to foreign countries.

Stop building ships and legalize (and tax) the drugs. 

Pay down the deficit instead.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!