Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

No. Cadets is the only place one could learn those skills. You learn how to act in a system, where you are in that system. Scouts? You swing on ropes, tie knots. There is no leadership. No brotherhood. Scouts do not march 60+ kms in a weekend. Scouts do not do anything of the sort. The military needs stuff like cadets. You know why? I have seen actual hate of the military in a lot of places. They need outreach. They need the country to take pride in them once more.

Nathan Poe is turning in his grave...

[kingfisher1112]

No. Cadets is the only place one could learn those skills. You learn how to act in a system, where you are in that system. Scouts? You swing on ropes, tie knots. There is no leadership. No brotherhood. Scouts do not march 60+ kms in a weekend. Scouts do not do anything of the sort. The military needs stuff like cadets. You know why? I have seen actual hate of the military in a lot of places. They need outreach. They need the country to take pride in them once more.

Nathan Poe is turning in his grave...

Explain?

[Sheb]

Well, your boyscouts are wimp. Over here, scouts do walk 60+ kms in a week-end. Anyway, the Army might need them for propaganda, but why do Australia need it? Also, what would be the ideal army size for you? You wouldn't want Australia to spend 60% of its revenue on the Army. So what army size do you think Australia need?

[kingfisher1112]

Well, your boyscouts are wimp. Over here, scouts do walk 60+ kms in a week-end. Anyway, the Army might need them for propaganda, but why do Australia need it? Also, what would be the ideal army size for you? You wouldn't want Australia to spend 60% of its revenue on the Army. So what army size do you think Australia need?

Well, it does total around 80,000 now. So, 100,000, mainly focusing on the navy. Because some largely landlocked nations have larger navies than us.

[Max White]

Explain?

Nathan Poe, creator of Poes law.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Basically it means that there is a point where it is impossible to tell insanity from parody.

[kingfisher1112]

Explain?

Nathan Poe, creator of Poes law.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Basically it means that there is a point where it is impossible to tell insanity from parody.

Where did I express " Insanity" in my last post?

[Sheb]

Okay, so you want 25% more soldiers. That's an extra 6 billions A$ a year. Where do you want that money to come from? What threat do you think justify spending an extra 6 billions a year? Indonesia? China? The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste?

[kingfisher1112]

Okay, so you want 25% more soldiers. That's an extra 6 billions A$ a year. Where do you want that money to come from? What threat do you think justify spending an extra 6 billions a year? Indonesia? China? The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste?

Ecological things. " Save the obscure animal", perhaps institute drug testing on welfare, and other stuff like that.

[Max White]

Where did I express " Insanity" in my last post?

Well there is the part where you think that cutting military spending will mean cutting funding to the cadets program.
Then the bit where you clearly have some sort of emotional bias towards the cadets program.
Then there comes the bit where because of your patriotism towards the cadets, you have a dislike of a similar rival program, kind of like how a sporting fan will show irrational dislike of a rival team.
Then comes the flag waving. It always ends in flag waving.

I get it, you have a bit of a hard one for the military.

Ecological things. " Save the obscure animal", perhaps institute drug testing on welfare, and other stuff like that.

You know that police issues and military issues are different things, right?

[Reelya]

Okay, so you want 25% more soldiers. That's an extra 6 billions A$ a year. Where do you want that money to come from? What threat do you think justify spending an extra 6 billions a year? Indonesia? China? The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste?

Ecological things. " Save the obscure animal", perhaps institute drug testing on welfare, and other stuff like that.

They tried that last one in America, it didn't save any money. It saved less than the cost of the testing, in fact. Less than 2% of welfare recipients tested positive for anything. and 90% of the positives were for marijuana.

Yeah, let's exterminate rare animals so we can uneccesarily militarize the nation to fight people who have zero economic incentive to invade (most of Australia is uninhabitable if you haven't noticed. We'd have 100 million here long ago, if we could).  Real good move.

BTW: Exactly which mostly land-locked nation has a bigger navy than us? And logically, why should that influence us? If they're not a direct threat to us, there's no reason to match their navy just to "keep up with the joneses".

[scriver]

I think it would be a lot better to take pride in your wonderous, one-of-a-kind nature and to spend more money to protect that rather than to put more money into any part of the military. More patriotic as well, for that matter.

[Sheb]

Max, he was saying what he want to cut to pay for a larger army.

Now, the Dept. of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities only get 2.4 billions between them. Adding the forestry and fishery dept., we get to 4.1 billions dollars. So you can't finance your army only by cutting "Ecological things" since even by cutting anything the government do that remotely has to do with the environment (not to do with protecting it, just has to do with the environment, like helping farmers), you'll only get 2/3 of the money.

And you've still not said why that army would be needed.

[kingfisher1112]

Where did I express " Insanity" in my last post?

Well there is the part where you think that cutting military spending will mean cutting funding to the cadets program.
Then the bit where you clearly have some sort of emotional bias towards the cadets program.
Then there comes the bit where because of your patriotism towards the cadets, you have a dislike of a similar rival program, kind of like how a sporting fan will show irrational dislike of a rival team.
Then comes the flag waving. It always ends in flag waving.


I get it, you have a bit of a hard one for the military.

Ecological things. " Save the obscure animal", perhaps institute drug testing on welfare, and other stuff like that.

You know that police issues and military issues are different things, right?

He asked for places to get money. I supplied them. Nothing to do with police.

So, I am insane for having patriotism. Quite frankly, fuck off. Our country is great. One of the best in the world. So what if I " Have a hard one for the military". The military, goddamn, our military. They have done so much to this world. The Germans would have gone unopposed in North Africa if it were not for us. We had one of the best generals in WW1. Small amounts of reservists, or "Choco Soldiers" held off massive amounts of Japanese. Young teenage boys helped troops out, all because of the mateship they had developed. Japanese troops burned villages, yet the populace still supported the troops.

You are the insane one. Cutting defence budgets will cut cadets funding. Cadets, well, my case stands. They are the best youth organisation out there. I wave my flag sir, despite how many dumbarse politicians we may have. I wave my flag, despite how many bogans get pissed on VB and crash V8's. I wave my flag. Many do. We are not insane. We like our country, what it has done for the world. We contribute a lot in foreign aid. We take on refugees, and we took 'em as early as after WW2. Sir, I wave my flag. I wave my flag to this great nation. If you don't like my flag waving, deal with it.

Okay, so you want 25% more soldiers. That's an extra 6 billions A$ a year. Where do you want that money to come from? What threat do you think justify spending an extra 6 billions a year? Indonesia? China? The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste?

Ecological things. " Save the obscure animal", perhaps institute drug testing on welfare, and other stuff like that.

They tried that last one in America, it didn't save any money. It saved less than the cost of the testing, in fact. Less than 2% of welfare recipients tested positive for anything. and 90% of the positives were for marijuana.

Yeah, let's exterminate rare animals so we can uneccesarily militarize the nation to fight people who have zero economic incentive to invade (most of Australia is uninhabitable if you haven't noticed. We'd have 100 million here long ago, if we could).  Real good move.

Poor animals. Poor, poor animals. Don't worry, you are more important than people.
Let's just open up and tax whaling by the Japanese in our waters.

I think it would be a lot better to take pride in your wonderous, one-of-a-kind nature and to spend more money to protect that rather than to put more money into any part of the military. More patriotic as well, for that matter.

I do. Quite frankly though, our people have a higher place than animals. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Reelya]

Let's just open up and tax whaling by the Japanese in our waters.

Good move! And face international economic sanction ourselves, which would outweigh any tax we charge them.

I do. Quite frankly though, our people have a higher place than animals. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I like how you say "our" people are above animals. You're making it quite clear that those "other" people don't merit the same humanity, which kind of deflates your "humanist" angle. Normally, people in this line of argument just say "I put people above animals" not "I put our people above animals", which is betraying a rather fascist / nationalist tone.

[Max White]

Max, he was saying what he want to cut to pay for a larger army.

Your right, I totally misread...

So wait, we are cutting environmental programs to fund the military?
Oh god this kid is classic. It wouldn't surprise me if he was against gay marriage and anti-gun restrictions too! Where can we get more?