In Defense of Equality ; an argument for democratic socialism

2016-04-15 16:15:10

#101

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

War Man wrote:
Be nice if our project procurement system wasn't so fucking focused on "jobs" and more on what the military actually needs. Shit like that that has led to 10-20 years of development to finally get a new vehicle or weapon into service like the piece of shit F35 that has been delayed for a decade and still hasn't really made any progress of being ready.

The F-35 is an amazing piece of engineering and the program is unfairly targeted. The $1 trillion figure is the estimated cost over a period to 2070. That number includes 2000 purchases of the jet for us and another 1000 for our allies. The development cost was split between like 20 countries.

Leave the F-35 alone.

2016-04-15 16:49:01

#102

Pocshy2.0: Member; +23|3588

I'd consider myself pretty far left leaning, but honestly really hate talking about it. I don't like circle jerking with other left leaning people, and I don't like explaining basic economics to retards who think wealth inequality somehow benefits them. I find it hilarious that Libertarians think that a.) defense is a zero-sum game and that b.) economic rising waters raise all ships.

Last edited by Pocshy2.0 (2016-04-15 16:49:18)

2016-04-15 22:15:44

#103

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6931|Purplicious Wisconsin

SuperJail Warden wrote:
War Man wrote:
Be nice if our project procurement system wasn't so fucking focused on "jobs" and more on what the military actually needs. Shit like that that has led to 10-20 years of development to finally get a new vehicle or weapon into service like the piece of shit F35 that has been delayed for a decade and still hasn't really made any progress of being ready.
The F-35 is an amazing piece of engineering and the program is unfairly targeted. The $1 trillion figure is the estimated cost over a period to 2070. That number includes 2000 purchases of the jet for us and another 1000 for our allies. The development cost was split between like 20 countries.

Leave the F-35 alone.

Lol, an F16 can outmaneuver an F35, the aircraft where the A variant is supposed to replace. Then again, I detect some trolling here.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2016-04-15 22:23:18

#104

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

War Man wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
War Man wrote:
Be nice if our project procurement system wasn't so fucking focused on "jobs" and more on what the military actually needs. Shit like that that has led to 10-20 years of development to finally get a new vehicle or weapon into service like the piece of shit F35 that has been delayed for a decade and still hasn't really made any progress of being ready.
The F-35 is an amazing piece of engineering and the program is unfairly targeted. The $1 trillion figure is the estimated cost over a period to 2070. That number includes 2000 purchases of the jet for us and another 1000 for our allies. The development cost was split between like 20 countries.

Leave the F-35 alone.
Lol, an F16 can outmaneuver an F35, the aircraft where the A variant is supposed to replace. Then again, I detect some trolling here.

that article was dumb. here a source

https://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f- … e-garbage/

f-35 is a stealth fighter unlike the f-16 and is also replacing the A-10 for CAS.

the only valid complaints about it is its cost. it is great for what it is intended to do.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-04-15 22:26:35)

2016-04-15 23:03:37

#105

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6931|Purplicious Wisconsin

SuperJail Warden wrote:
War Man wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
The F-35 is an amazing piece of engineering and the program is unfairly targeted. The $1 trillion figure is the estimated cost over a period to 2070. That number includes 2000 purchases of the jet for us and another 1000 for our allies. The development cost was split between like 20 countries.

Leave the F-35 alone.
Lol, an F16 can outmaneuver an F35, the aircraft where the A variant is supposed to replace. Then again, I detect some trolling here.
that article was dumb. here a source

https://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f- … e-garbage/

f-35 is a stealth fighter unlike the f-16 and is also replacing the A-10 for CAS.

the only valid complaints about it is its cost. it is great for what it is intended to do.

If we put all our eggs in the stealth basket we are essentially asking for a given weakness. Means of detecting stealth are advancing and given the time it would take before the f35 finally fucking enters service, if it enters service given its long delay, probably would be available by then.

F35 has less bomb load than the f16, let alone the a10, making it even more inferior to counterparts. It probably could technically end up with same capacity as the f16(but not a10), but that removes its stealth capability making giving it stealth pointless.

The f35 platform absolutely is a terrible replacement for a10. A proper CAS aircraft needs to fly low and slow in order to give the best CAS possible, something the f35 cannot do.

Do you want me to dig up more argument on why the F35 is a piece of shit? I can argue this all day about the piece of shit that our airforce and marines are shoving down our throats and robbing the entire military budget along with it.

Last edited by War Man (2016-04-15 23:04:49)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2016-04-16 03:04:41

#106

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

War Man wrote:
Lol, an F16 can outmaneuver an F35, the aircraft where the A variant is supposed to replace. Then again, I detect some trolling here.

Its not a dogfighter. No doubt a T34 could outmanoeuvre an Abrams tank - which would you put your money on?

Fuck Israel

2016-04-16 04:15:33

#107

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/0/05/TheHomer.png/revision/latest?cb=20090908145331

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-04-16 05:20:33

#108

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

Dilbert_X wrote:
War Man wrote:
Lol, an F16 can outmaneuver an F35, the aircraft where the A variant is supposed to replace. Then again, I detect some trolling here.
Its not a dogfighter. No doubt a T34 could outmanoeuvre an Abrams tank - which would you put your money on?

F16 can outdogfight the f18.

omg navy so fucking stupid buying f18 lel.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2016-04-16 05:51:59

#109

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

If there's one thing we've learned in the last 50 years its that air-superiority fighters are the key to making the world great again.

Fuck Israel

2016-04-16 07:50:05

#110

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

We don't have to replace the A-10. It is slow, can't be launched from a carrier, and the youngest ones are at least 32 years old. We need to keep them to destroy all those tanks we fight.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-04-16 07:50:27)

2016-04-16 10:26:33

#111

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6931|Purplicious Wisconsin

Dilbert_X wrote:
War Man wrote:
Lol, an F16 can outmaneuver an F35, the aircraft where the A variant is supposed to replace. Then again, I detect some trolling here.
Its not a dogfighter. No doubt a T34 could outmanoeuvre an Abrams tank - which would you put your money on?

Abrams has far superior armor and firepower, there is no comparison at all between the two. Aircraft are not tanks, f35 and f16 are about similar in toughness.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2016-04-16 14:05:40

#112

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6989|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:
War Man wrote:
Lol, an F16 can outmaneuver an F35, the aircraft where the A variant is supposed to replace. Then again, I detect some trolling here.
Its not a dogfighter. No doubt a T34 could outmanoeuvre an Abrams tank - which would you put your money on?

What is even going on in this thread?

There is so much more going on in a T-34 vs M1 match-up. Putting aside the obscene advantage in every relevant respect the M1 enjoys, it even has a better power/weight ratio. Why not compare the M1 to a contemporary like the Challenger II, Type 99, T-14, and other tanks the M1 will never face because nobody but the mad wants a war between two nuclear powers?

2016-04-16 15:25:34

#113

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

ISIS and AQ have T-72s. Can we use that tank in this analogy?

2016-04-16 16:04:44

#114

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6989|PNW

2016-04-16 17:06:57

#115

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

We do it too:

https://defense-update.com/images/samara-stryker.jpg

Stop RPG's.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-04-17 09:59:05

#116

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

Rather than raising taxes in order to cycle money through the government, why can't we change the tax code to get businesses to share more of its profits with its workers? That seems like a workable small government solution to inequality.

2016-04-18 03:19:37

#117

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6628|'Murka

How would changing tax code force profit redistribution?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2016-04-18 03:57:59

#118

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There is so much more going on in a T-34 vs M1 match-up. Putting aside the obscene advantage in every relevant respect the M1 enjoys, it even has a better power/weight ratio. Why not compare the M1 to a contemporary like the Challenger II, Type 99, T-14, and other tanks the M1 will never face because nobody but the mad wants a war between two nuclear powers?

OK, make it 5 SAS guys vs 10 Marines.

Fuck Israel

2016-04-18 03:59:43

#119

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Rather than raising taxes in order to cycle money through the government, why can't we change the tax code to get businesses to share more of its profits with its workers? That seems like a workable small government solution to inequality.

Because workers typically make dumb decisions, that's why they're workers after all.

Workers aren't going to invest in machinery or infrastructure, they'll blow it on flat screen TVs and other useless short term crap.

Fuck Israel

2016-04-18 05:09:16

#120

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

Dilbert_X wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Rather than raising taxes in order to cycle money through the government, why can't we change the tax code to get businesses to share more of its profits with its workers? That seems like a workable small government solution to inequality.
Because workers typically make dumb decisions, that's why they're workers after all.

Workers aren't going to invest in machinery or infrastructure, they'll blow it on flat screen TVs and other useless short term crap.

I am not talking about workers seizing the means of production. I am talking about maintaining the existing corporate structure and getting employers to voluntarily share a larger percent of profits.

@FEOS I never said force.

Hillary has a plan to offer tax credits to corporations that share profits with lower income employees.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing … t-sharing/

2016-04-18 07:34:34

#121

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Rather than raising taxes in order to cycle money through the government, why can't we change the tax code to get businesses to share more of its profits with its workers? That seems like a workable small government solution to inequality.
Because workers typically make dumb decisions, that's why they're workers after all.

Workers aren't going to invest in machinery or infrastructure, they'll blow it on flat screen TVs and other useless short term crap.
I am not talking about workers seizing the means of production. I am talking about maintaining the existing corporate structure and getting employers to voluntarily share a larger percent of profits.

@FEOS I never said force.

Hillary has a plan to offer tax credits to corporations that share profits with lower income employees.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing … t-sharing/

We already have a 35% corporate tax rate that is supposed to be redistributed. Where do you think your military industrial complex gets its funding? Stupid.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-04-18 08:41:58

#122

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

Jay wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Because workers typically make dumb decisions, that's why they're workers after all.

Workers aren't going to invest in machinery or infrastructure, they'll blow it on flat screen TVs and other useless short term crap.
I am not talking about workers seizing the means of production. I am talking about maintaining the existing corporate structure and getting employers to voluntarily share a larger percent of profits.

@FEOS I never said force.

Hillary has a plan to offer tax credits to corporations that share profits with lower income employees.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing … t-sharing/
We already have a 35% corporate tax rate that is supposed to be redistributed. Where do you think your military industrial complex gets its funding? Stupid.

Did you even read the plan? It is a $20 bl. tax cut.

2016-04-18 09:32:39

#123

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

The only way to get companies to raise wages is to take on shareholders. Except the biggest holders of shares are pensions and 401k's, so good luck fucking over retirees and union members. It's not like they vote or anything.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-04-18 12:46:12

#124

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6849|949

Biggest shareholders of many (but not all, or close to half) companies are mutual and institutional funds, of which yes, a majority of 401k and pensions invest into. It's not as simple as "the biggest shareholders are pensions and 401ks".

2016-12-12 12:46:04

#125

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3937

I have been reading some Irving and Bill Kristol lately and I have come to the conclusion that Neoconservatism is a pretty respectful ideology. I think I could get on board with it if neo-cons supported an expansion of the social safety net and some compromise on civil rights.

BF2S Forums In Defense of Equality ; an argument for democratic socialism

War Man wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

War Man wrote:

War Man wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

War Man wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

War Man wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

War Man wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

War Man wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

War Man wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

War Man wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer