Xander

Joined

• started 94 topics
• posted 2,045 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Xander

• 
  15

  Truth about new tax plan....

  by Xander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  highlight:.

  what the president said: "92 million americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money when this tax plan goes through " .

  what we found:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Highlight:

  What the president said: "92 million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money when this tax plan goes through "

  What we found:

  If you look at the average for all taxpayers, this is correct.

  However, this average is derived from all income levels and all estimated savings. This skews the number upward.

  According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institute, 80 percent of all tax filers would receive less than the $1,083 average the president mentioned.

  Meanwhile, half of all tax filers would get less than $100.

  We asked the Treasury Department, which calculated the figure used by the president, to give us an estimate on the percentage of Americans receiving the $1,083. A spokesperson said the department could only provide us with the average savings.
• 
  23

  The thing I love about America the most is...

  by dolphman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i won't get executed for leaving it.

  in other words, it's not like n.korea... http://www.msnbc.com/news/863322.asp?0cv=cb20.

  but i guess if we're to believe the saddam lovers and communist/socialist and honda prius driving folks here then america is much, much worse than i think it is..... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Hiking in the woods 1 hr away, river rafting 30 min away and not need a passport for any of it.

  Yeah, cause those goddamn Canadians require a passport for EVERYTHING! Just like the British do! And, the French, too!! And Japan, too! Man, you can't even leave Tokyo without 16 forms of ID, a blood sample, and swearing an other to a pagan god!

  Thank the gods we live in the good ol' USA and not the rest of the heathen world

  Edited by - Xander on 24 January 2003 17:13:55
• 
  64

  How Do You Feel About President Bush?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i like him, but he makes me a little nervous.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  seems to me that they would rather change policy than deal with the problem.

  No, you miss the point, instead of needing a fleet of battleships to bombard a beach and aircraft to strafe, and troops landing in boats charging up a beach into enemy fire....

  They just land the troops BEHIND them and attack from the rear.

  Thus, the beauty of the so-called "Amphibious Assault Ships"

  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lhd-1.htm

  Sort of, like, 'mini-carriers', except with helicopters replacing aircraft and LOTS of troops. The Wasp class (link above) can carry almost 2,000 troops and land them using up to 42 Sea Knight Helicopters.

  Plus, at a per unit cost of $380 mil, you can buy one of these for every 5 years you crew an Iowa alone. *THIS* is the better way to get a marine unit ashore, and no Iowa needed.
• 
  111

  Are You In Support Of Starting A War In Iraq ?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it looks inevitable.

  do you think this is more a carry over from president pappy bush's not getting the job done while he was in office?

  do you think the usa and it's allies can fight multiple wars??

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  and I was on my own foot loose and fancy free, I would join the US Military and make a career out of it in a HEART BEAT

  Growing up, I'd always hoped there was a way around the JW restrictions against that. I really wanted to make a carrier of the navy. Circumstances obviously prevented it from happening, but looking back now...

  Well, I certainly would not now. I think the difference is, growing up, I only met the idealistic youth of America, and that gave me hope. Teens are full of noble goals and spirit.

  I've met too many adult Americans now, and I no longer think the country is worth defending - not because of its ideology, which, at least as laid out, was noble, and worth defending. But now....the population of this country is far too arrogant, far too lazy, and far too narrow minded and uneducated about the world around them (and I'm not talking geographically, which is also abysmal, I mean politically. Most Americans simply act as if the rest of the world does not exist or even matter).

  It's not the COUNTRY I have a problem with, just its leaders and, like, 90% of the people IN it.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  BTW, I'm at my posting limit AGAIN, so *cough* while I add this humorous and more on topic than the rest of my post comic:

  Edited by - Xander on 24 January 2003 17:30:6
• 
  64

  How Do You Feel About President Bush?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i like him, but he makes me a little nervous.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  rather be on a Battleship when taking a torpedo hit or on a Destroyer

  As I tried to point out above, comparing a battleship to a destroyer is not a fair comparison. Compare it to a carrier, and yes, I'd rather be on the carrier.

  4 Battleships for 1.7 Billion or 4 Destroyers for 3.6 Billion. Which has greater offensive capability?

  Against what kind of target?

  Aircraft? The destroyer

  Submarines? The destroyer

  Surface ships that fire missiles at you from beyond gun range? The destroyer

  Targets further inland than gun range? The destroyer

  Which A: Carrier or B: Battleship can deliever more ordinance

  Again, choose your target. Against Kabul? The carrier can deliver infinately more ordnance, since the BB can get exactly 0 weapons there (well, the BB refits have a few tomahawk launchers, bet IIRC, all those missiles have been retired, so still 0)

  Against Baghdad? Same thing - the BB can't even touch the target.

  I know we lost a lot of CARRIER based planes in vietnam

  Surely you realize that was because of the asinine political restrictions on the air war, not due to any defect of desine or usage.

  Carriers are great for what they do but they are not designed for Marine Landings

  Quite a good point, but irrelevant. US policy is to not to do 'opposed marine landings' again.

  I read that they even made Nuclear shells for the Iowas back in the 50's

  True, but they never left mainland USA. Their usage was....questionable. The BB just couldn't fire far enough to be outside of fallout range. It was kind of a 'fire a broadside, and leave the area REAL FAST'.

  Our carriers regularly deployed with nukes up until fairly recently - and still, as aircraft hardpoints are essentially the same throughout the US military, any carrier can be outfitted to be nuclear capable during any UNREP. It goes without saying a carrier could puke that nuke down WELL outside of any potential danger range to the CVBG.
• 
  64

  How Do You Feel About President Bush?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i like him, but he makes me a little nervous.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  The Navy spent about $1.7 billion to modernize and reactivate the four Iowa class battleships

  Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for construction of 4 new destroyers in fiscal year 1997

  So, at .9 billion a destroyer, the Navy could have had two brand-spanking new Arleigh Burkes for the cost of modernizing the Iowas - and that's just out the gate costs. Maintenance on the Iowas was a nightmare (nobody MAKES any of those parts any more) - estimated at 68.3 million dollars a year. Also, the crew costs were higher, as well.

  Compare:

  Arleigh Burke Iowa 23 officers 65 officers 300 enlisted 1,450 enlisted 0 marines 58 marines

  You'll note nearly 3-4x the crew.

  A new carrier costs about $5 Billion and it cant take a hit

  Actually, a carrier can take quite a FEW hits. And carriers are FAR more versatile than battleships. Sure, the Iowas were used in Desert Storm to 'soften up the defense'. They would have been REAL useful in our Afghanistan campaign, wouldn't they? Carriers sure were! A carrier can hit any target on the planet. A battleship cannot.

  blast would have chipped the paint on an Iowa, thats it

  Really? The torpedo that crippled the Bismark carried roughly as much explosive. I think you'll find that where the attack hits is more important that the payload. A carrier could survive such an attack just as easily as the Iowa, but the point is irrelevant, as we certainly cannot replace every destroyer and frigate in our fleet with a carrier or battleship - we will always need the smaller craft, and they will always be a more tempting target to terrorist attacks (because they can be damaged meaningfully).

  (Naval history is something of a favorite topic of mine)

  Edited by - Xander on 24 January 2003 14:51:6
• 
  20

  I licked Paul Stanley of KISS on Saturday

  by ApagaLaLuz in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i've been meaning to post this for all the music fans out there.

  last weekend we were in anaheim for the namm convention.

  it's a musician's trade show.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander
• 
  64

  How Do You Feel About President Bush?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i like him, but he makes me a little nervous.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Sorry, but color me skeptical. A man who resurrects 4 WW2 battleships just to give himself a bigger fleet quicker....

  I mean, c'MON, there is just no REASON for that....
• 
  64

  How Do You Feel About President Bush?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i like him, but he makes me a little nervous.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Reagan: I just bombed Kadafi's house and tommorow Im going to Nuke China.

  LOL!

  So, your assessment of a president's worth is based on his inability to find a peaceful solution to a problem?
• 
  14

  Something profound just hit me...indulge me a bit?

  by truthseekers2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, so i'm standing in the bathroom brushing my teeth .

  "i believe in god.

  the almighty god taught in the bible.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Well, I guess there would be three schools of thought on this, and it would change my answer depending:

  • You don't go on. When you die, that's it. Obviously, I would carry nothing on in this case.
  • You are tranformed into some 'next stage' of life. As a spirit being or something. I don't think you'd carry anything on in this case, either. I mean, how much do you recall from being an infant-in-the-womb? Nothing? The experiences then simply don't relate to your current existence, so you don't remember them. I'm sure something similar would happen in this case.
  • Your spirit is reborn into a physical form. Ah, now THIS is the tricky question. What does the 'human experience' teach us? I don't know yet, I think. A lot of things? Nothing? How great a failure arrogance is? What it means to understand the beauty of the world? (I certainly hope not this one, at least for most people, as most seem to truly miss the important things)