Bill Gates: "Private Sector [Research and Development] is in General Inept"

[Revoltingest]

So you're telling me we need more destroyers and cutting any from the budget would be a bad thing? Next you're going to tell me that Obama has decimated the military. RW propaganda is powerful. A lot of corporations in the military industry spend a lot of money buying representatives in congress, they need their government welfare.

Proof for this conspiracy?

 

[tytlyf]

Proof for this conspiracy?

You're telling me no one in the fossil fuel or military industry is buying up representatives in congress? Alert me when a democrat spends $1 billion each election season.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're telling me no one in the fossil fuel or military industry is buying up representatives in congress? Alert me when a democrat spends $1 billion each election season.

I'm telling you that I worked in the defense industry for multiple companies.
I never saw any such thing.
Moreover, when I've asked for evidence, no one has ever offered any.
The better explanation is that presidents are re-elected when they start & continue wars.
The voters drive this bus.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm telling you that I worked in the defense industry for multiple companies.
I never saw any such thing.
Moreover, when I've asked for evidence, no one has ever offered any.
The better explanation is that presidents are re-elected when they start & continue wars.
The voters drive this bus.

That's because you're not a millionaire. If it was obvious, it wouldn't be so effective. Like I said, the republican party is bought and paid for by special interests at the sum of $1 billion dollars each election cycle. Which party was in favor of citizens united? Are you in favor of citizens united? Being that you're a libertarian, I would assume you are. Just like you want to get rid of all public schools. In favor of....wait for it.....privatized schools to make a profit. (we already have private schools)

 

[esmith]

And @esmith, who made you Secretary of the Navy?

Neptunus Rex

 

[esmith]

So you're telling me we need more destroyers and cutting any from the budget would be a bad thing? Next you're going to tell me that Obama has decimated the military. RW propaganda is powerful. A lot of corporations in the military industry spend a lot of money buying representatives in congress, they need their government welfare.

To answer your question "So you're telling me we need more destroyers and cutting any from the budget would be a bad thing" is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, a good starting point might be:
http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/
Of course I have a 99.999% educated assumption based on your previous post you will reject not only the source but the conclusions of this "one" article.
However to give a "simple" answer to "destroyers from the budget would be a bad thing" is a simplistic assumption to a complex problem. FYI I disagree with the Zumwalt Class destroyer program.

Now to your other point "Next you're going to tell me that Obama has decimated the military." The answer is complex but the answer is a guarded yes.
http://www.truthandaction.org/washington-times-obama-decimated-military-us-marginally-able-defend/

Of course you will reject the source since in "your mind" it comes from a lying RW source.

 

[tytlyf]

To answer your question "So you're telling me we need more destroyers and cutting any from the budget would be a bad thing" is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, a good starting point might be:
http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/
Of course I have a 99.999% educated assumption based on your previous post you will reject not only the source but the conclusions of this "one" article.

However to give an answer to "destroyers from the budget would be a bad thing" is a simplistic assumption to a complex problem. FYI I disagree with the Zumwalt Class destroyer program.

Wait, you sourced the Koch institute? Come on man....you can do better than that. Skip Cato too. America isn't weak esmith, we have the strongest and most skilled military in the world. We can cut a few ships here and there to give the troops what they deserve. I'm surprised you don't agree.

 

[esmith]

Wait, you sourced the Koch institute? Come on man....you can do better than that. Skip Cato too. America isn't weak esmith, we have the strongest and most skilled military in the world. We can cut a few ships here and there to give the troops what they deserve. I'm surprised you don't agree.

I edited an added to the post. suggest you read it. But as I said and you just proved it doesn't come from your "approved" sources so it must be wrong. Care to supply "data" to counter the points made. Of course not because it would require work.

 

[tytlyf]

I edited an added to the post. suggest you read it. But as I said and you just proved it doesn't come from your "approved" sources so it must be wrong. Care to supply "data" to counter the points made. Of course not because it would require work.

You have to pay attention to the words and positions used by politicians. When a politician says that climate change is a hoax = Fossil Fuel corrupted. When a politician says that war is necessary and making up lies to go to war = Military industrial complex corrupted (also fossil fuel related). The NRA is a good example of an organization that profits off fear. GHWB was right to cancel his lifetime membership after the NRA lost it's way.

It's sad to see Trump get corrupted by the establishment, it took months for the establishment to support him. But after backroom deals and 'talks' he's come around to them. Another reason to never vote republican. He's even been talking about Exxon coming into oil areas controlled by ISIL and taking the oil after he's carpet bombed them. You have to listen to the words used. It's a shame, Trump was on the right path, but he's being corrupted by the insiders. That's something he would never have said before. Exxon? Way to give away who you're corrupted by. Notice he only mentioned Exxon a couple times. Not another company name.

Oh well, the establishment always wins. I'm in the middle class, I have no business voting republican.

EDIT: I see your new source in your link above. Still the Koch foundation. Care to try again? I bet you like Brigitte Gabriel too! hehe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm telling you that I worked in the defense industry for multiple companies.
I never saw any such thing.
Moreover, when I've asked for evidence, no one has ever offered any.
The better explanation is that presidents are re-elected when they start & continue wars.
The voters drive this bus.

You probably never saw anything because you're a "small fry." You aren't one of the "top dogs" with millions and billions to make.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...ary-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

Recently, the "black budget" of secret intelligence programmes alone was estimated at $52.6bn for 2013. That is only the secret programmes, not the much larger intelligence and counterintelligence budgets. We now have 16 spy agencies that employ 107,035 employees. This is separate from the over one million people employed by the military and national security law enforcement agencies.
The core of this expanding complex is an axis of influence of corporations, lobbyists, and agencies that have created a massive, self-sustaining terror-based industry.
...
In the first 10 days of the Libyan war alone, the administration spent roughly $550m. That figure includes about $340m for munitions - mostly cruise missiles that must be replaced. Not only did Democratic members of Congress offer post-hoc support for the Libyan attack, but they also proposed a permanent authorisation for presidents to attack targets deemed connected to terrorism - a perpetual war on terror. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers an even steadier profit margin. According to Morgan Keegan, a wealth management and capital firm, investment in homeland security companies is expected to yield a 12 percent annual growth through 2013 - an astronomical return when compared to other parts of the tanking economy.
...
There are thousands of lobbyists in Washington to guarantee the ever-expanding budgets for war and homeland security. One such example is former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff who pushed the purchase of the heavily criticised (and little tested) full-body scanners used in airports. When Chertoff was giving dozens of interviews to convince the public that the machines were needed to hold back the terror threat, many people were unaware that the manufacturer of the machine is a client of the Chertoff Group, his highly profitable security consulting agency. (Those hugely expensive machines were later scrapped after Rapiscan, the manufacturer, received the windfall.)
Lobbyists maintain pressure on politicians by framing every budget in "tough on terror" versus "soft on terror" terms. They have the perfect products to pitch - products that are designed to destroy themselves and be replaced in an ever-lasting war on terror.
....
With the support of an army of lobbyists and companies, cabinet members like former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, are invincible in Washington. When citizens complained of watching their children groped by the TSA, Napolitano defiantly retorted that if people did not want their children groped, they should yield and use the unpopular full-body machines - the machines being sold by her predecessor, Chertoff.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's because you're not a millionaire.

I'm working on it.

If it was obvious, it wouldn't be so effective.

I cannot argue with such compelling proof.

 

[Revoltingest]

You probably never saw anything because you're a "small fry." You aren't one of the "top dogs" with millions and billions to make.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...ary-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

The link makes many claims, but they are just unsupported claims.

I have a theory.....
In order to support their leaders (Hillary, Obama), who continually push starting/continuing our wars,
Democrats must insulate them from what they advocate. They cannot be responsible for what they
do & say, so someone else must be manipulating them. This would be the shadowy "Military Industrial
Complex" (MIC", which is there for all to see, but whose wicked machinations are undetectable....of course.
(Note: I'm not addressing the Pubs because everyone knows they love war, so they need no bribes.)

Two big questions arise....
1) If Democratic leaders only push for war because they're puppets of the MIC, why do Dems support
them so fervently, but with inaudible criticism for the wars?
2) If presidents who start & continue wars are re-elected for starting/continuing wars, how are the voters
not responsible?

OK....#2, raises more questions.....
A) If voters aren't responsible for who is elected, then who is?
- The machines are rigged by the MIC?
- Voters are brainwashed by the MIC?

This is all far far too elaborate & unevidenced an explanation for our country's war lust.
Offering up Eisenhower as a prophet doesn't do it for me.


Where does this leave us?
All we (Americastanian RF posters) need do is vote against any candidate who favors more of the same wars.
But I notice that many here who favor Hillary don't actually oppose the wars (except for when they were Bush's).
Is the Democrats' dirty little secret that war is their guilty pleasure?
Can't blame that on the MIC......without also claiming they have Jedi like powers.

 

[esmith]

EDIT: I see your new source in your link above. Still the Koch foundation. Care to try again? .

Let me put it this way. If I wanted fairy tales I might read and listen to whatever you use as a data source. Second do you really expect your sources to tell the truth? Third and most important I have yet to see any data that refutes the data I supplied you. Now just to make it clear, your opinion does not count as "data" and that is all you have been able to put forth. Doesn't your leftest sources cover this issue? Other than opinions I mean.

 

[metis]

Again, what's missing from this discussion is the results from the "sequester" agreement that was passed to avoid a government shutdown.

Both sides had to make painful concessions, which included cuts in the military budget, with the prevailing thought that these cuts were so painful that both sides would eventually cave and agree to pass a more sane bill. But what happened is that the Pubs considered this, and to the shock of many, decided instead that they could live with these cuts instead of working out a compromise resolution. Then what some of them have done ever since is to blame Obama for the military cuts.

IOW, it's politics as usual.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The link makes many claims, but they are just unsupported claims.

Except it does support it's claims, it does give companies, it does give names, it does give budgets and spending.

Two big questions arise....
1) If Democratic leaders only push for war because they're puppets of the MIC, why do Dems support
them so fervently, but with inaudible criticism for the wars?

America isn't a democracy. We do not have "democratic leaders." And the Dems that support them, much like the Reps that support them, do so because it is the establishment. They get money for supporting the policies desired by donors, individuals and groups, the status quo goes on, and we are told to be afraid - be afraid over something that is extremely unlikely to happen but we need to be afraid so right-erroding laws can be enacted so those who would benefit can prosper. Just how terribly convenient that Dick Cheney's own company at the time was doing a lot of work and contracting in Iraq.

2) If presidents who start & continue wars are re-elected for starting/continuing wars, how are the voters
not responsible?

The voters do bear some of the responsibility, as do the majority non-voters.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except it does support it's claims, it does give companies, it does give names, it does give budgets and spending.

It shows that lobbying exists, but this does not mean that MIC money buys war.
What actually happens is that influence determines who gets contracts or permission to sell outside the US.
This I've seen.

America isn't a democracy. We do not have "democratic leaders." And the Dems that support them, much like the Reps that support them, do so because it is the establishment. They get money for supporting the policies desired by donors, individuals and groups, the status quo goes on, and we are told to be afraid - be afraid over something that is extremely unlikely to happen but we need to be afraid so right-erroding laws can be enacted so those who would benefit can prosper. Just how terribly convenient that Dick Cheney's own company at the time was doing a lot of work and contracting in Iraq.

This is a defeatist view.
Voting matters.
Alas, the voters are happy with war....so long as it's their party waging it.
As for Cheney benefiting, it is possible that he could advocate war for personal gain.
But for Obama & Bush, what is there to gain other than approval of voters who like war?

The voters do bear some of the responsibility, as do the majority non-voters.

On this we agree, except that I give them the vast bulk of responsibility.
Voters re-elected Bush after starting 2 wars.
Voters re-elected Obama after continuing 2 wars.
Dems are favoring the hawk over the dove for their Nov candidate.
Pubs are favoring a belligerent possible-hawk for Nov too.

 

[tytlyf]

Let me put it this way. If I wanted fairy tales I might read and listen to whatever you use as a data source. Second do you really expect your sources to tell the truth? Third and most important I have yet to see any data that refutes the data I supplied you. Now just to make it clear, your opinion does not count as "data" and that is all you have been able to put forth. Doesn't your leftest sources cover this issue? Other than opinions I mean.

The only thing conservatives want is for their biases to be confirmed. Hence 'confirmation bias' is what gets them in trouble. Your media intentionally takes advantage of conservatives in support of a republican corporate vote. Been like this for decades. Only now there are new conservative outlets on the web popping up spreading the same BS. I do expect respectable journalistic outlets to report the truth. Fox doesn't have journalists, they have opinion and talking heads. Just listen to the words and language they use....scary.

There's no such thing as leftist sources, ABC, CNN, CBS, NPR, etc are not leftist sources. More moderate. But I understand why Fox and conservative media tells you they are. That's called 'conditioning' to keep you from learning any extra information or facts. Fox is run by a propagandist republican establishment elitist. And you think they wouldn't try to take advantage of low information voters......You'll learn one day

 

[Ouroboros]

Bill Gates: "Private Sector [Research and Development] is in General Inept"

Isn't Microsoft an example of a private sector research and development company? Is he finally admitting to how crappy Windows is designed? Is this an example of a Blue Screen of Death by Gates himself? Hmm....

 

[esmith]

The only thing conservatives want is for their biases to be confirmed. Hence 'confirmation bias' is what gets them in trouble. Your media intentionally takes advantage of conservatives in support of a republican corporate vote. Been like this for decades. Only now there are new conservative outlets on the web popping up spreading the same BS. I do expect respectable journalistic outlets to report the truth. Fox doesn't have journalists, they have opinion and talking heads. Just listen to the words and language they use....scary.

There's no such thing as leftist sources, ABC, CNN, CBS, NPR, etc are not leftist sources. More moderate. But I understand why Fox and conservative media tells you they are. That's called 'conditioning' to keep you from learning any extra information or facts. Fox is run by a propagandist republican establishment elitist. And you think they wouldn't try to take advantage of low information voters......You'll learn one day

Guess you haven't learned. I suggested that you provide data to support your opinion(?) and all you do is dodge and weave without doing so. Typical leftist ploy.....If you don't have an answer try changing the subject.

 

[tytlyf]

Guess you haven't learned. I suggested that you provide data to support your opinion(?) and all you do is dodge and weave without doing so. Typical leftist ploy.....If you don't have an answer try changing the subject.

I already answered it. America is not weaker now. Your sources don't deserve respect because they are highly biased and corrupt. You may believe the talking heads telling you America is weaker, but they are lying to you. America is much stronger now than 8 years ago.

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-US-become-weaker-since-Barack-Obama-became-president