Funny - Kucinich uses pie chart to debate Dean...on RADIO

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
LMFAO

Kucinich Shows Pie Chart on Radio Debate
By Associated Press

January 6, 2004, 8:44 PM EST

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Federal spending was the topic and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich came prepared with a pie chart to argue his point about a bloated Pentagon budget.

But although many listened to Tuesday's presidential debate, few could see the Ohio congressman's prop.

The debate was broadcast only on National Public Radio.

As Kucinich challenged Democratic front-runner Howard Dean for refusing to acknowledge that the Pentagon budget needs to be cut, debate moderator Neal Conan of NPR interrupted.

"Congressman Kucinich is holding up a pie chart, which is not truly effective on radio," Conan told his listeners.

Kucinich was not deterred.

"Well, it's effective if Howard can see it," he replied.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
well, really he's only there to annoy the candidates, he knows basically no one cares about him.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
He's got a good sense of humor, and it's a shame he won't get elected. At least he's very straightforward and doesn't pussyfoot about his positions, no matter who the audience is.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
He's got a good sense of humor, and it's a shame he won't get elected. At least he's very straightforward and doesn't pussyfoot about his positions, no matter who the audience is.
no, youve got it wrong. its good that hes not going to get elected because he is a pussy. he wants to cut military spending? the military is the only institution being funded that seems to be performing at or above expectations. cut spending to all the useless crap or the crap thats not performing to expectations for gods sake!
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
He's got a good sense of humor, and it's a shame he won't get elected. At least he's very straightforward and doesn't pussyfoot about his positions, no matter who the audience is.
no, youve got it wrong. its good that hes not going to get elected because he is a pussy. he wants to cut military spending? the military is the only institution being funded that seems to be performing at or above expectations. cut spending to all the useless crap or the crap thats not performing to expectations for gods sake!
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People
 

Mardeth

Platinum Member
Jul 24, 2002
2,609
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
He's got a good sense of humor, and it's a shame he won't get elected. At least he's very straightforward and doesn't pussyfoot about his positions, no matter who the audience is.
no, youve got it wrong. its good that hes not going to get elected because he is a pussy. he wants to cut military spending? the military is the only institution being funded that seems to be performing at or above expectations. cut spending to all the useless crap or the crap thats not performing to expectations for gods sake!
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People
"pWnEd!" I was actually laughing at his comment which I rarely do. The US army is probably the lowest performer of them all.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
He's got a good sense of humor, and it's a shame he won't get elected. At least he's very straightforward and doesn't pussyfoot about his positions, no matter who the audience is.
no, youve got it wrong. its good that hes not going to get elected because he is a pussy. he wants to cut military spending? the military is the only institution being funded that seems to be performing at or above expectations. cut spending to all the useless crap or the crap thats not performing to expectations for gods sake!
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People

So exactly what should it have cost if the $87b is too much? Putting aside the argument of whether or not we should even be there, what should it have cost? Your saying we could have paid every Iraqi $__ or quoting how much they spent on defense, their male population, etc. certainly isn't a logical argument for what it should have cost for the war/rebuliding in Iraq and quite honestly borders on the moronic. Maybe you could give us an exact dollar figure to help validate your argument or is getting a "pwned" from the retarded 12 year old who posted after you validation enough?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
I see you are living up to your name--show it with pride.

We are not spending $87B to "occupy" alone, the most significant portion of that money is used for reconstruction projects. I especially enjoyed your "we could pay their entire military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that" argument, for it merely exposes 2 dimensional thinking. Yes, we could pay thier population $25K/year--what exactly would that accomplish? Reconstruction requires more than mere manpower, it requires millions of tons of (espensive) equipment as well as the fabrication assorted "parts".

LOL, thanks for the chuckle Tool, sometimes you liberals crack me up.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Corn
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
I see you are living up to your name--show it with pride.

We are not spending $87B to "occupy" alone, the most significant portion of that money is used for reconstruction projects. I especially enjoyed your "we could pay their entire military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that" argument, for it merely exposes 2 dimensional thinking. Yes, we could pay thier population $25K/year--what exactly would that accomplish? Reconstruction requires more than mere manpower, it requires millions of tons of (espensive) equipment as well as the fabrication assorted "parts".

LOL, thanks for the chuckle Tool, sometimes you liberals crack me up.

You are actually wrong there. The majority of that money is to directly support military operations, replace lost equipment, etc. Only about 20 billion is discretionary reconstruction spending. It is incredibly expensive to keep 130k+ troops operating in a combat zone.


 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: Mardeth

"pWnEd!" I was actually laughing at his comment which I rarely do. The US army is probably the lowest performer of them all.
Bernard Coard, Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein send their regards.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
I see you are living up to your name--show it with pride.

We are not spending $87B to "occupy" alone, the most significant portion of that money is used for reconstruction projects. I especially enjoyed your "we could pay their entire military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that" argument, for it merely exposes 2 dimensional thinking. Yes, we could pay thier population $25K/year--what exactly would that accomplish? Reconstruction requires more than mere manpower, it requires millions of tons of (espensive) equipment as well as the fabrication assorted "parts".

LOL, thanks for the chuckle Tool, sometimes you liberals crack me up.
20Billion/year should do it. Costs of occupation should be commesurate with the threat. I don't think Iraq was an 87B/year threat.
I know 87B is not that much money to you "small government" conservatives (at only $1000/year per US family, who's counting), but it's a lot of money to waste on an occupation of still unproved necessity.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Corn
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
I see you are living up to your name--show it with pride.

We are not spending $87B to "occupy" alone, the most significant portion of that money is used for reconstruction projects. I especially enjoyed your "we could pay their entire military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that" argument, for it merely exposes 2 dimensional thinking. Yes, we could pay thier population $25K/year--what exactly would that accomplish? Reconstruction requires more than mere manpower, it requires millions of tons of (espensive) equipment as well as the fabrication assorted "parts".

LOL, thanks for the chuckle Tool, sometimes you liberals crack me up.
20Billion/year should do it. Costs of occupation should be commesurate with the threat. I don't think Iraq was an 87B/year threat.
I know 87B is not that much money to you "small government" conservatives (at only $1000/year per US family, who's counting), but it's a lot of money to waste on an occupation of still unproved necessity.
20billion couldnt possibly cover the cost of re-equiping our troops [re-equiping them with stuff they have lost - vehicles, weapons, armor, etc...] plus, if ive understood correctly, this 87billion also helps to pay these troops, so cutting it to 20billion definately wouldnt cover paying the troops and rearming them, plus the cost of reconstruction!
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Here's the break-down on spending for the $87billion:

~$20billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq
~$67billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq AND Afghanistan.

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Corn
You must have pretty low expectations for the military. Spending $87B this year to occupy a country with only 3500000 men fit for military service, we could put their whole military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that. We are spending $87B/year to defeat a country that only spent $1.3B/year on its whole military. That is 1.5 times more than Iraq's whole GDP.
I see you are living up to your name--show it with pride.

We are not spending $87B to "occupy" alone, the most significant portion of that money is used for reconstruction projects. I especially enjoyed your "we could pay their entire military fit population on our payroll at $25K/year for that" argument, for it merely exposes 2 dimensional thinking. Yes, we could pay thier population $25K/year--what exactly would that accomplish? Reconstruction requires more than mere manpower, it requires millions of tons of (espensive) equipment as well as the fabrication assorted "parts".

LOL, thanks for the chuckle Tool, sometimes you liberals crack me up.
20Billion/year should do it. Costs of occupation should be commesurate with the threat. I don't think Iraq was an 87B/year threat.
I know 87B is not that much money to you "small government" conservatives (at only $1000/year per US family, who's counting), but it's a lot of money to waste on an occupation of still unproved necessity.
20billion couldnt possibly cover the cost of re-equiping our troops [re-equiping them with stuff they have lost - vehicles, weapons, armor, etc...] plus paying, if ive understood correctly, this 87billion also helps to pay these troops, so cutting it to 20billion definately wouldnt cover paying the troops and rearming them, plus the cost of reconstruction!
Which is why it wasn't worth it. Iraq is not worth spending more than 20B/year if that.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,849
234
106
Originally posted by: Queasy
Here's the break-down on spending for the $87billion:

~$20billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq
~$67billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq AND Afghanistan.
Which comes to about 82 cents per day per American. Not bad in reality. IMHO

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
As long as they are not spending $400 on a hammer or toilet anymore the budget is not "bloated".
Just because the hammers only get billed at $100 each doesn't mean they don't put "qty 4" infront of it;)
Just as much "bloat" exists today as there was in the $400 hammer days...if not moreso.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,090
5,283
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
As long as they are not spending $400 on a hammer or toilet anymore the budget is not "bloated".
Just because the hammers only get billed at $100 each doesn't mean they don't put "qty 4" infront of it;)
Just as much "bloat" exists today as there was in the $400 hammer days...if not moreso.

CkG
Damn, Caddy, that's a sad story. There's a medicine, right on the tip of my tongue; it takes care of both acid indigestion and bloat.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
If you pay attention to what Dennis says about the military budget, instead of just jumping to conclusions, he makes a lot of sense.

The importance of his position would be that it would allow rational discussion of the military budget, instead of the possibly wasteful policy of not having any honest discussion about it because of politician's fear of appearing weak for even asking questions.

Not whether or not he would actually cut anything.

 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch


If you pay attention to what Dennis says about the military budget, instead of just jumping to conclusions, he makes a lot of sense.
Why would we pay attention to what he has to say, as the chart was there for Dean, not the LISTENING audience :)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,090
5,283
126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch


If you pay attention to what Dennis says about the military budget, instead of just jumping to conclusions, he makes a lot of sense.
Why would we pay attention to what he has to say, as the chart was there for Dean, not the LISTENING audience :)
And besides, just because we listen doesn't mean we'll comprehend.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY