The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2012, 05:31 PM   #51
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
DO you really think that advances in aircraft are going to make flying 35 year old planes a long term good idea..
Tell that to the DoD. They're the ones planning on F-35s flying for the next 25+ (not 35) years.

Hell, within 10 years, in-cockpit piloted planes will be obsolete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar
Just sometimes you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland..
If only our military was being used to defend the US instead of a futile attempt at global empire.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 06:11 PM   #52
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
We have enough oil for a long long time. Even when it runs out i doubt its solar that replaces it.
Oh great seer, tell us more!

Want a more secure country? It starts at the base, and at the base of everything is the need for energy.

Know what one of the most critical, expensive and logistically challenging parts of running an army is? Fueling the machines. You're quite right that we won't have solar powered jets, tanks or anytime soon. But, we might be able to run a factory with solar power and power our civilian and military logistics vehicles with solar or other alternative sources.

There's a reason the navy uses nuclear powered ships whenever possible.

Of course, the less the civilian population relies on oil for transportation, industry and the economy, the more will be available for the military and the more likely we will be to be able to sustain the type of industrial activity necessary to stay in the fight.

You are all obsessed with entirely the wrong thing. You think the most important aspect of security is having more planes, tanks, bombs, etc _now_. That's simply not true. As I've said before, the most important aspect of security is the economic and industrial capacity to build those things _faster than the enemy_ -- and the cornerstone of that ability is energy.

China understands this, which is why they are dumping tons of money into alternative energy.

You know why Japan attacked us despite their military leadership knowing it was a bad idea to start another front halfway around the world? They had no choice. They were running out of oil because of U.S. embargoes.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 12-12-2012 at 06:36 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:10 PM   #53
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Germany broke the Versialles treaty in 1935 and moved troops into the Rhineland in 1936. The war didn't get hot until 1938, but it was already in progress by 1935.
Let's see even if that is correct.

1941-1935= a decade. Yes liberalism at its best, rewriting history.

Ahahahahahahahaha
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:18 PM   #54
Jetmeck
Not a Chief's board
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,291
Default

**** it....give alll the tax breaks to greedy ass oil companies....**** green energy and the future and the planet.

**** it all....that bad Obama included.
Jetmeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:19 PM   #55
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
So this says they spend 50% more than they claim (which puts them spending less than 1/4 what we currently spend). A far cry from the claimed 10x. It also projects that China will be outspending us in 25 years. That's pretty meaningless as we can barely figure out whats going to happen next year let along 25 years from now.

But again, where China is beating us hands down in the investment they are making in their infrastructure and manufacturing capability. That is the true threat. We're wasting a lot of money building things that in 25 years probably won't even be relevant on the battlefield. By all means we should continue R&D (including building things) but not at the expense of our own economic and industrial strength.
How about factoring in the rate of pay for those goods. $.38 per hour vs. probably $40.+ and also they are working for non profits our guys are not. Their true cost of making an AK47 is a fraction of the cost of our AR 15.

So they spend a fraction ofthe cost yet make billions in profits for exporting their AK47 adding it into the governmental profits.

Sorry but your Thoughts comparing their reported expenditures to ours, will not withstand scrutiny.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:21 PM   #56
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Let's see even if that is correct.

1941-1935= a decade. Yes liberalism at its best, rewriting history.

Ahahahahahahahaha
Look up the meaning of the word nearly.

But as usual, you can't contribute to the conversation so you're just resorting to trolling. What a paragon you are.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:36 PM   #57
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Look up the meaning of the word nearly.

But as usual, you can't contribute to the conversation so you're just resorting to trolling. What a paragon you are.
Nearly Almsot close approximation. So in liberalville 6=10 , even if you are really feel it started in 1935.

Here is what most folks beleive.

Quote:
World War II, or the Second World War (often abbreviated as WWII or WW2), was a global war that was underway by 1939 and ended in 1945.

but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and Britain.
So rewrite history for everyone else. I don't care.

It still seems like 2 years to me and everyone else. In fact I'd bet that most would beleive WWII started in 1941 if they even knew about it.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:44 PM   #58
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

IMO it really started as Hitler was writing mein kampf, but no later than 1933 when he was named the Chancellor of Germany.

But I like history.

Last edited by lonestar; 12-12-2012 at 07:46 PM..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 07:58 PM   #59
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
How about factoring in the rate of pay for those goods. $.38 per hour vs. probably $40.+ and also they are working for non profits our guys are not. Their true cost of making an AK47 is a fraction of the cost of our AR 15.
So, Communist China is more efficient and less corrupt than the U.S by a large margin? I had no idea they were so much better than us!

While China will continue to enjoy a significant manpower cost savings over us, it's not the 100x you imply. And, as they continue to modernize, that cost savings will be eroded.

China has a massive number of troops, but their hardware doesn't even begin to compare (not even their new jets).

Quote:
So they spend a fraction ofthe cost yet make billions in profits for exporting their AK47 adding it into the governmental profits.
The U.S. is the #1 arms dealer in the world, far outpacing China.

"Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/wo...2011.html?_r=0

Even when you factor in likely profit margin, the U.S. comes out ahead. Cheap, mass produced items like the AK-47 have a lot lower profit margin than the advanced weaponry the U.S. sells.

Quote:
Sorry but your Thoughts comparing their reported expenditures to ours, will not withstand scrutiny.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:02 PM   #60
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Nearly Almsot close approximation. So in liberalville 6=10 , even if you are really feel it started in 1935.

Here is what most folks beleive.



So rewrite history for everyone else. I don't care.

It still seems like 2 years to me and everyone else. In fact I'd bet that most would beleive WWII started in 1941 if they even knew about it.
Nice hissy fit. 6.5/10.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:07 PM   #61
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
In fact I'd bet that most would beleive WWII started in 1941 if they even knew about it.
****in' dope. WWII started in 1931, when the Japanese invaded Manchuria in China.

Hell, one can argue that WWII started with the Treaty of Versailles and the gutting of Germany.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:08 PM   #62
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,739
Default

Basically, the Right needs to make China into some horrific boogeyman to justify their belief in a fascist America.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:10 PM   #63
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Oh great seer, tell us more!

Want a more secure country? It starts at the base, and at the base of everything is the need for energy.

Know what one of the most critical, expensive and logistically challenging parts of running an army is? Fueling the machines. You're quite right that we won't have solar powered jets, tanks or anytime soon. But, we might be able to run a factory with solar power and power our civilian and military logistics vehicles with solar or other alternative sources.

There's a reason the navy uses nuclear powered ships whenever possible.

Of course, the less the civilian population relies on oil for transportation, industry and the economy, the more will be available for the military and the more likely we will be to be able to sustain the type of industrial activity necessary to stay in the fight.

You are all obsessed with entirely the wrong thing. You think the most important aspect of security is having more planes, tanks, bombs, etc _now_. That's simply not true. As I've said before, the most important aspect of security is the economic and industrial capacity to build those things _faster than the enemy_ -- and the cornerstone of that ability is energy.

China understands this, which is why they are dumping tons of money into alternative energy.

You know why Japan attacked us despite their military leadership knowing it was a bad idea to start another front halfway around the world? They had no choice. They were running out of oil because of U.S. embargoes.
Solar is so inneffecient i just dont see it meeting our needs, ever. The powerplants take too much land and only work when sun is out. The notion solar can do much for us when you factor in the cost is a fantasy.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:11 PM   #64
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Still loving the hypocrisy. You don't think there are "pet projects" in the defense budget? You don't think there is spending for the sake of spending. Projects the military doesn't even want?

Why are you complaining about pennies being tossed in the trash and not complaining when rolls of $100 bills are being used as firewood?
sure there are projects, but perhaps something will come of them.. opposed to throwing money at green just because they are morons pet projects and most likely his buds getting the money to accomplish nothing, but line their pockets....

if you want research dollars spent on these projects fund the think tanks at the innovative universities such as Stanford..

Then allow real companies to run with the findings/ideas opposed to start ups that have NO capitol to do so..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:13 PM   #65
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Solar is so inneffecient i just dont see it meeting our needs, ever. The powerplants take too much land and only work when sun is out. The notion solar can do much for us when you factor in the cost is a fantasy.
You know how you can make something more efficient?

Research!

You wingnuts just have no ****ing clue how the real world works. It takes time, effort and money to learn new things. If idiots like you were running things, we'd still be in the stone age.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:13 PM   #66
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
So, Communist China is more efficient and less corrupt than the U.S by a large margin? I had no idea they were so much better than us!

While China will continue to enjoy a significant manpower cost savings over us, it's not the 100x you imply. And, as they continue to modernize, that cost savings will be eroded.

China has a massive number of troops, but their hardware doesn't even begin to compare (not even their new jets).



The U.S. is the #1 arms dealer in the world, far outpacing China.

"Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/wo...2011.html?_r=0

Even when you factor in likely profit margin, the U.S. comes out ahead. Cheap, mass produced items like the AK-47 have a lot lower profit margin than the advanced weaponry the U.S. sells.
Yet you have zero knowledge of what China is really exporting either.. Like they tell the world what they are doing in that area..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:15 PM   #67
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Yet you have zero knowledge of what China is really exporting either.. Like they tell the world what they are doing in that area..
Gotta love it. You and cutlet think you can just make whatever **** up you want, with no support.

What evidence do you have that China is exporting more than my reference implies? What does China make (in terms of military hardware) that anyone would event want to ****ing buy?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:17 PM   #68
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

now getting back on target of the topic..

Quote:
Dear Energy Patriot,

For years, Congress has subsidized energy production. This has to stop.

Tomorrow, we at the American Energy Alliance will kick off our 48 hour campaign to #EndTheWindGiveaway. With your help, we can end Congress’ multi-billion dollar subsidy to wind energy companies.

Since 1992, Congress has handed out $20 Billion in subsidies to the wind industry via something called the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Wind energy companies claim they need these subsidies to keep their inefficient businesses afloat. In recent times, wind has received 42% of all government energy subsidies but has produced less than 3 percent of the electricity generated.

How you can help:

1) Click here to sign our petition

2) Click here to send a tweet using our twitter feed

3) Forward this email to friends and ask them to do 1&2.

The wind industry has received subsidies since 1978 to give wind a “leg up.” Isn’t 35 years of subsidies enough? Isn’t it about time that the wind industry stands on its own without massive taxpayer subsidies?

Extending the PTC just one year would cost taxpayers an additional $12 Billion! Help us end the cycle of corporate dependency!

this is the scary part..

Since 1992, Congress has handed out $20 Billion in subsidies to the wind industry via something called the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Wind energy companies claim they need these subsidies to keep their inefficient businesses afloat. In recent times, wind has received 42% of all government energy subsidies but has produced less than 3 percent of the electricity generated.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:19 PM   #69
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
sure there are projects, but perhaps something will come of them.. opposed to throwing money at green just because they are morons pet projects and most likely his buds getting the money to accomplish nothing, but line their pockets....

if you want research dollars spent on these projects fund the think tanks at the innovative universities such as Stanford..

Then allow real companies to run with the findings/ideas opposed to start ups that have NO capitol to do so..
Most fundamental R&D has a negative ROI. Only a tiny percentage pays out. It's not something you can do without MASSIVE capital to work with. Only really, really large companies (e.g. IBM) and governments can afford to make those kind of bets.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:22 PM   #70
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
now getting back on target of the topic..

this is the scary part..

Since 1992, Congress has handed out $20 Billion in subsidies to the wind industry via something called the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Wind energy companies claim they need these subsidies to keep their inefficient businesses afloat. In recent times, wind has received 42% of all government energy subsidies but has produced less than 3 percent of the electricity generated.[/COLOR]
See: Most R&D having a negative ROI. The thing is, you don't know what will have a positive ROI unless you try. Shall we just stop trying to learn and improve because everything is not immediately (or perhaps ever) profitable?

$500m/year is peanuts compared to the black hole of R&D in the military.

P.S. You should get some reading glasses if you need huge fonts to read.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:26 PM   #71
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Most fundamental R&D has a negative ROI. Only a tiny percentage pays out. It's not something you can do without MASSIVE capital to work with. Only really, really large companies (e.g. IBM) and governments can afford to make those kind of bets.
where did I say small companies should do this IF anything I said start ups should not be involved..

fund top universities to do the R&D..

then hand it off to corporations to build.. paying licensing fees to do so.. and God forbid pay taxes on the profits..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:43 PM   #72
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
where did I say small companies should do this IF anything I said start ups should not be involved..

fund top universities to do the R&D..

then hand it off to corporations to build.. paying licensing fees to do so.. and God forbid pay taxes on the profits..
So we shouldn't foster small businesses with existing technology developed by universities? We should just give up to the Chinese who are currently kicking our ass in large part because they are subsidizing their companies?

You think we should be charging licensing fees for companies to use technology developed with public funding?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:46 PM   #73
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
So we shouldn't foster small businesses with existing technology developed by universities? We should just give up to the Chinese who are currently kicking our !@#$%^&* in large part because they are subsidizing their companies?

You think we should be charging licensing fees for companies to use technology developed with public funding?
NO and Yes
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:48 PM   #74
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Obviously when something big needs to be funded or researched our govt will always be a main player. Thats not the question. The question in whether or not solar energy is a smart technology for our govt to be betting on so heavily. The folly to cool the earth could cost us big time. Bioengineering to cool the earth. Co2 reduction will never make it happen unless you are planning some sort of population control. Solar is a loser.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:50 PM   #75
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,903

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
NO and Yes
So, give up the game to China. Wow.

Charge taxpayers twice for R&D. Wow.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 AM.


Denver Broncos