Indeed it is constitutionally mandated...CitadelGrad wrote: National defense is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government. I'm pretty sure we could get along quite well with your little piece of the bureaucracy.
Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...Chizzang wrote:Indeed it is constitutionally mandated...CitadelGrad wrote: National defense is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government. I'm pretty sure we could get along quite well with your little piece of the bureaucracy.
So why the **** are we spending 1.4 Billion on advertising something that is going to exist no matter what..?
It can't be explained logically
However it does make sense to Republicans (somehow..?)
just like a republican to use a scare tactic in defense of the ridiculous wasteful spending...Col Hogan wrote:Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...Chizzang wrote:
Indeed it is constitutionally mandated...
So why the **** are we spending 1.4 Billion on advertising something that is going to exist no matter what..?
It can't be explained logically
However it does make sense to Republicans (somehow..?)
Or, maybe we could save all that advertising money and just go back to a draft...
here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?Col Hogan wrote:Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...Chizzang wrote:
Indeed it is constitutionally mandated...
So why the **** are we spending 1.4 Billion on advertising something that is going to exist no matter what..?
It can't be explained logically
However it does make sense to Republicans (somehow..?)
Or, maybe we could save all that advertising money and just go back to a draft...
Because there is no draft. It is an all-volunteer force.Chizzang wrote:Indeed it is constitutionally mandated...CitadelGrad wrote: National defense is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government. I'm pretty sure we could get along quite well with your little piece of the bureaucracy.
So why the FUCK are we spending 1.4 Billion on advertising something that is going to exist no matter what..?
It can't be explained logically
However it does make sense to Republicans (somehow..?)
There is certainly waste, but I wouldn't say fraud or abuse is a significant problem. Maybe conservatives give military spending less scrutiny because the armed forces are necessary and mandated, unlike other parts of the government.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?Col Hogan wrote:
Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...
Or, maybe we could save all that advertising money and just go back to a draft...
it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...
Wrong, wrong and WRONG.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Col Hogan wrote:
Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...
Or, maybe we could save all that advertising money and just go back to a draft...
here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?
it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...
Who ever said that.....WHO???TwinTownBisonFan wrote:here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?Col Hogan wrote:
Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...
Or, maybe we could save all that advertising money and just go back to a draft...
it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...
Me thinks TT is channeling OBSF....Col Hogan wrote:Who ever said that.....WHO???TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?
it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...
Strawman 101...
His Mensa card is in the mail.AZGrizFan wrote:Me thinks TT is channeling OBSF....Col Hogan wrote:
Who ever said that.....WHO???
Strawman 101...
Oh, come on....nobody...N-O-B-O-D-Y can do OBSF like OBSF...AZGrizFan wrote:Me thinks TT is channeling OBSF....Col Hogan wrote:
Who ever said that.....WHO???
Strawman 101...
I guess it's like the "progressive" Donks who march lock-step to the drum beat against reforms for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?Col Hogan wrote:
Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...
Or, maybe we could save all that advertising money and just go back to a draft...
it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...
No offense colonel but you're the one who responded with the really (really) stupid "go back to the draft" comment - He is making an honest observation which only AZ has dignified with an Honest answer...Col Hogan wrote:Who ever said that.....WHO???TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?
it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...
Strawman 101...
So, do you think it should be ZERO? Or is there some # in between you'd be comfortable with?Chizzang wrote:No offense colonel but you're the one who responded with the really (really) stupid "go back to the draft" comment - He is making an honest observation which only AZ has dignified with an Honest answer...Col Hogan wrote:
Who ever said that.....WHO???
Strawman 101...
The rest of you guys are leaving me scratching my head on this one...
So what if it's volunteer only
1.4 billion on advertising is a ridiculous (beyond ridiculous) unnecessary wast....
AZGrizFan wrote:So, do you think it should be ZERO? Or is there some # in between you'd be comfortable with?Chizzang wrote:
No offense colonel but you're the one who responded with the really (really) stupid "go back to the draft" comment - He is making an honest observation which only AZ has dignified with an Honest answer...
The rest of you guys are leaving me scratching my head on this one...
So what if it's volunteer only
1.4 billion on advertising is a ridiculous (beyond ridiculous) unnecessary wast....
Hard to believe you went to Harvard...the simple things escape you.Chizzang wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
So, do you think it should be ZERO? Or is there some # in between you'd be comfortable with?
Can you find one eligible American (JUST ONE) who isn't aware of the U.S. Military...?
What the FUCK are they advertising..? I mean seriously it's all image improvement stuff
There should be enough money to support recruiting offices and that's it
None more (zero dollars more)
Talk about fucking over the US tax payer... Jeezus
Cluck U wrote:Hard to believe you went to Harvard...the simple things escape you.Chizzang wrote:
Can you find one eligible American (JUST ONE) who isn't aware of the U.S. Military...?
What the FUCK are they advertising..? I mean seriously it's all image improvement stuff
There should be enough money to support recruiting offices and that's it
None more (zero dollars more)
Talk about fucking over the US tax payer... Jeezus
Limited advertising budget:
"Hey you, we need stupid people to die for other people's interests!" Sign here. ________
1.4 billion dollar advertising budget:
"Look at our cool gadgets...your friend who went to college drives a BMW or a Camero (Fuck Yeah!)...much cooler than your used Ford Escort. But you'll get to be a part of a team (even if you are only cleaning toilets) that drives machines that could blow up your friend's car (flash to army Apache helicopter/M1 Abrams; Air Force Stealth fighter/Navy aircraft carrier; Marine...uhhh...infiltration unit)...and so cool you can bag chicks.*" Vroom, vroom!" Sign here. _________
* But only those chicks that like men of limited intelligence that would fall for these commercials. But hey, hasn't everyone wanted to bag the local bowling alley queen?
Post of the year material..!!!!
I think I'm supposed to resent that post.Cluck U wrote:Hard to believe you went to Harvard...the simple things escape you.Chizzang wrote:
Can you find one eligible American (JUST ONE) who isn't aware of the U.S. Military...?
What the FUCK are they advertising..? I mean seriously it's all image improvement stuff
There should be enough money to support recruiting offices and that's it
None more (zero dollars more)
Talk about fucking over the US tax payer... Jeezus
Limited advertising budget:
"Hey you, we need stupid people to die for other people's interests!" Sign here. ________
1.4 billion dollar advertising budget:
"Look at our cool gadgets...your friend who went to college drives a BMW or a Camero (Fuck Yeah!)...much cooler than your used Ford Escort. But you'll get to be a part of a team (even if you are only cleaning toilets) that drives machines that could blow up your friend's car (flash to army Apache helicopter/M1 Abrams; Air Force Stealth fighter/Navy aircraft carrier; Marine...uhhh...infiltration unit)...and so cool you can bag chicks.*" Vroom, vroom!" Sign here. _________
* But only those chicks that like men of limited intelligence that would fall for these commercials. But hey, hasn't everyone wanted to bag the local bowling alley queen?
Actually, you need to do more research on NASCAR fans.CID1990 wrote:(BTW- I say get rid of the NASCAR sponsorship too, but put up more recruiting commercials in their place. Bubba NASCAR Fan does not need the message. He is already pro-military.)
You are correct, but I discounted those educated NASCAR fans because I doubt they are going to be influenced to join the military because of a fast car with a logo that says "ARMY".Cluck U wrote:Actually, you need to do more research on NASCAR fans.CID1990 wrote:(BTW- I say get rid of the NASCAR sponsorship too, but put up more recruiting commercials in their place. Bubba NASCAR Fan does not need the message. He is already pro-military.)
While at MBNA, we found that NASCAR fans, on average, were college educated and had a very nice salary and a penchant for spending money on high value items...and they were loyal. And they sent their kids to college.
We're not talking about the infield scrubs...they were loyal to cheap beer and America. But it turned out that a significant part of NASCAR followers were well educated and profitable.
Sure, they supported the military. Most money spending capitalists do. But let's be real...only the "Bubba" infield people, and cheap seat folks, would knowingly allow their children to become regular military sacrificial lambs.
Cluck U wrote:Actually, you need to do more research on NASCAR fans.CID1990 wrote:(BTW- I say get rid of the NASCAR sponsorship too, but put up more recruiting commercials in their place. Bubba NASCAR Fan does not need the message. He is already pro-military.)
While at MBNA, we found that NASCAR fans, on average, were college educated and had a very nice salary and a penchant for spending money on high value items...and they were loyal. And they sent their kids to college.
We're not talking about the infield scrubs...they were loyal to cheap beer and America. But it turned out that a significant part of NASCAR followers were well educated and profitable.
Sure, they supported the military. Most money spending capitalists do. But let's be real...only the "Bubba" infield people, and cheap seat folks, would knowingly allow their children to become regular military sacrificial lambs.
It's the crashes stupid... thats why fans hate clean races.Chizzang wrote:Cluck U wrote:
Actually, you need to do more research on NASCAR fans.
While at MBNA, we found that NASCAR fans, on average, were college educated and had a very nice salary and a penchant for spending money on high value items...and they were loyal. And they sent their kids to college.
We're not talking about the infield scrubs...they were loyal to cheap beer and America. But it turned out that a significant part of NASCAR followers were well educated and profitable.
Sure, they supported the military. Most money spending capitalists do. But let's be real...only the "Bubba" infield people, and cheap seat folks, would knowingly allow their children to become regular military sacrificial lambs.
You are on a ROLL tonight Mr. Cluck
I agree with the entire post - the NASCA demographic is complex - however for the life of me I can't figure out why watching a car drive around in circles is entertaining - but that is beside the point... The truth is a huge swath of people covering a complete range of incomes love NASCAR...
and the sacrificial lambs part is hysterical (and true)
UNHWildCats wrote:It's the crashes stupid... thats why fans hate clean races.Chizzang wrote:
You are on a ROLL tonight Mr. Cluck
I agree with the entire post - the NASCA demographic is complex - however for the life of me I can't figure out why watching a car drive around in circles is entertaining - but that is beside the point... The truth is a huge swath of people covering a complete range of incomes love NASCAR...
and the sacrificial lambs part is hysterical (and true)
it wasn't a strawman - it was based on posts by both you and z, dismissing wasteful spending in DoD in this thread.Col Hogan wrote:Who ever said that.....WHO???TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?
it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...
Strawman 101...