Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MountainDweller
2231 Followers
Michael Westen
2692 Followers
Maddy Manny
736 Followers
angelina jolie
466 Followers
Allen. S. Battles
593 Followers
hax0rgam3r
567 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
darkslayer13Feb 6, 2011
The company contracted to build these drone planes changed its name to 'Cyberdyne Systems'
Nothing could possibly go wrong....
laborerFeb 6, 2011
Yes, this sounds like an amazing device to meet the people of the 21st century's needs.
Exactly how many schools could have been built and maintained with the funds from this guy?
kilobobaFeb 6, 2011
636$ million could probably make 636 schools roughly.
laborerFeb 6, 2011
Nice.
I know of a handful of schools from my local area up on the chopping block this out season. A major highschool and various smaller elemtary and middle schools. Glad to know we have the proper priorities.
norman619Feb 7, 2011
636 Dropout factories? Fantastic!
homeserverlandFeb 7, 2011
well said! my thoughts exactly!
knuckheadFeb 7, 2011
You own stock in Northrop Grumman eh?
rattelerFeb 7, 2011
Yes. Far better to bus those kids into an overcrowded dropout factory somewhere else, than spend a little money and try to get through to them.
At least you wealthy elite will have plenty of "Batdrones" to protect you from them when they go "Egypt" on your ass.
falcon642Feb 7, 2011
These days $636 million will buy you approximately SIX to TWELVE schools that will handle 1,000 students a piece. These days a school costs at least $50 million. The small town I live is voting on a bond to build a new school for 1200 students, the cost to build the school will be $96 million. $1 million dollars will buy you a 7,000 square foot home, not a school
You have no idea how much money a drone air force would SAVE. First off the planes are cheaper because you don't have to build c**kpits and life support systems for the pilot. Second, you don't have to spend nearly as much money training new pilots. Third you don't have to spend nearly the money in drills and such.
Then of course there is the benefit of not having to send a human into danger.
atomic1fireFeb 7, 2011
not to mention, if one of these drone factories is in a local town, they will have jobs that would have otherwise been lost.
that means tax payers, and better schooling.
akufenFeb 8, 2011
Your argument might've been valid if there was a need for these things. But really there isn't. The industry of war exists because there is profit to be made, not because we're in dire need of protection.
By your reasoning, if I go out and buy myself a yacht tomorrow, I saved myself a ton of money. After all, I could've gone for the oil tanker.
falcon642Feb 8, 2011
Someone needs to go back and smack your history teachers.
The geopolitical balance will not allow a power vacuum and if the US immediately began to downsize its military it would create a power vacuum not seen since the fall of the Roman empire, and the chaos the ensues as a power vacuum is filled is not good.
If the United States suddenly adopted an isolationist stance, China would invade Taiwan, North Korea would invade South Korea, Russia would absorb many of the former Soviet Republics, Iran would immediately begin to destabilize the Middle East, and Africa would explode into a thousand civil wars.
The United States military is a tremendous stabilizing force in the world.
akufenFeb 8, 2011
And someone needs to congratulate the corporate media you're watching for a job well done.
You talk about the 'chaos' that would ensue if the US downsized its military, yet you seem oblivious to the chaos that same military created in the past 100 years. The dictators it supported, and the mess it created because its owner only cared about its hold on the world and the profit that stems from it. You talk about examples like Iran destabilizing the Middle East if it wasn't for the US, yet you seem to forget everything the US has done in the Middle East to destabilize it. It supports and has supported the most hard-line regimes, it invaded more than once and supported other wars against the Muslim world. And, most ironically, it is the reason why Iran is now considered a problem in the first place.
You also have the audacity to take Africa as an example, yet you seem to forget that, unless there's a profit to be made, the acts against humanity on that continent have totally slipped under the radar of your altruistic military. Perhaps they're too occupied bringing peace and stability to those parts of the world where there is actually money to be made.
Secondly, my history teachers were full o s**t and I had to learn the hard way that whatever they're shoving you and me down our throats is usually based in la-la-land. At least, I came to that conclusion, you still seem to be living the dream that the US is bringing peace and stability across the planet.
But that's not really a surprise, knowing that you've probably been brought up in a nation that has subverted their education system (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM) and where the media is nothing but a propaganda outlet where the only critical light shone on the subject of its nations imperialism exists so the illusion of unbiased reporting can persist in the victims of the skewed reality they've created.
Anyway, you, of course, believe what you want.
falcon642Feb 8, 2011
Wow, you're response is just like this classic line from Team America:
"Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money. "
Rule number one of liberal debate, blame it all on the corporations.
Second off, you completely ignored my point of the US military being a stabilizing force and you completely failed to address what would happen if the military downsized. Sure the US has done some bad things, its called Realpolitik and EVERY country does it. If you are expecting perfection then every country needs to commit mass suicide now. Perhaps we need to smack your reading teachers as well.
akufenFeb 11, 2011
I could blame other people and organisations for the way the US tries to tighten it's grip on the world and increase its wealth, but that would be beside the point and not counter your argument that there was a reason for spending most of your tax dollars on military equipment. Which, after all, is done by an industry and its corporations. I can understand that it must be a life changing experience that for once, terrorists are not to blame, but that does not drive me to the point of diluting the reality.
And I did not ignore your point, I countered it. Me blaming the military industry and arguing that the US is not a stabilizing force, actually goes hand in hand. In all fairness, one disproves the other. After all, the US doesn't want to be a stabilizing force because that would actually lead to the military being downsized. And nobody wants to downsize such a profitable industry.
So what do you do to sustain that industry? You do exactly the opposite of what you claim they do. You wage war and you create the opportunities to wage war. It does not take a college degree to understand that situation when you're living in a capitalist world.
Also, you mock me blaming the industry of war, but then you throw the word Realpolitik around. So, you're really just agreeing with what I say, wars being waged are out of self-interest and have nothing to do with ideology or, heaven forbid, altruism. And just because you can stick a name on it and claim everyone does it, does not make it OK in my book. Especially when the 'beacon of freedom and progress', who actually has (or had?) the opportunity to take things in a different direction but has shown no intention to do so.
I'll ignore your false dilemma of 'perfection' with which you so eloquently closed your post because it's not worth the time.
norman619Feb 7, 2011
It has been proven over and over again that the problem with our schools isn't money. We spend a s**tload on schools in this country with virtually no change in quality of education.
qntmdnmcsFeb 7, 2011
Put the money into hiring better teachers or someone to figure out why the curriculum isnt working. It is certainly a better use of the funds than on "DEFENSE".(TOP SECRET)
norman619Feb 7, 2011
Wrong. The unions are the problem. First step is taking the unions out of the equation. THEN we can work on improving the quality of teachers.
conservative_zombieFeb 7, 2011
Hiring better teachers? Isn't this a profession they chose? One they went to college for, interviewed for, accepted jobs for?
norman619Feb 7, 2011
To be fair, not all teachers are equal. Just like not all mechanics and doctors are the same.
conservative_zombieFeb 7, 2011
But their unionized approach forces them to be treated as such.
rattelerFeb 7, 2011
In other countries, yes. In America, teachers are a bottom rung job for people who can't get a job in the field they got their education in. As a result, we end up with a pool of pissed off teachers who don't give a s**t, and don't believe kids can obtain their dreams because they couldn't.
The rare person who WANTED to be a teacher ends up living the life of a monk, because they get paid s**t for doing what they love, and if they are any good, they get employed in a better paying non-teaching job, where they are not as happy, but can support their family better.
Our public school system is designed to keep any one who thinks out side the box, oppressed to the point of quitting. TO make education as impalatable as possible so the elite can maintain their reign over the stupid while showing a big cashed check and claiming "we did everything we could."
Undereducated people eventually turn to blind faith, and of course become Neo-Cons. Just like the Richest 2% wanted all along.
conservative_zombieFeb 7, 2011
You start off making an incorrect statement. People go to college specifically for a degree in education. They become certified to teach specific curriculum.
You continue on with the illogical conclusion that teachers live some life of poverty. Yes, great benefits,retirement and tenure. Guaranteed raises. Three months vacation. More than most people get
You compound your stupidity by blaming the school system. Schools can't reward teachers as their bound by contractual obligations. All for one and one for all. The passionate, committed teacher can't have anything that the lazy abusive clock watcher doesn't get.
And then you top it off with the assertion that it's some nefarious plan of the big bad people..
rattelerFeb 7, 2011
Conservative definition of a incorrect statement. Any thing they disagree with regardless of the facts.
Very few people go to college for a degree in education. If you had been to college you would know that it is pushed to students who usually transfer from another curriculum, or as a second degree just in case.
You continue with your neo-con No-ledge, by pointing to the teachers ever shrinking benefit packages, and ignoring a salary level is that is almost 1/3 less than similar education levels in other fields.
You protect your parties sabotage of the education system with the same tired tactic. Name calling, and saying "No" and supporting it with no facts. Then harping on the Neo-Con anti-union BS, in spite of the well known fact that the labor portion of any occupation account for only about 10% of the cost of the operation.
If you could eliminate all unions and force people to work for free, in most businesses, you would only shave 10% of the cost off any product generated. You great fight with unions is to make a $10 item cost $9.
Now to further rip down your retarded Republican brain's delusional misgivings. (See, liberals can name call too.) You first claim that the Evil union prevents the best teachers from getting proper recognition, and gives shelter to the "lazy abusive clock watcher" , but then claim that a teacher can achieve more... in our socialized public education system, than that same "lazy abusive clock watcher". In spite of the fact that teachers don't have to compete based on results, and that the the only reward system in place is for staying in the system.
It sounds like you need to go argue with yourself and figure out which side you're on. Oh wait... no you don't you're a conservative. Facts are meaningless to you.
As to it not being a conspiracy, well... the only proof I have is more of those pesky facts. Like the drops in graduation, general literacy, math, and science scores over the last 30 to 50 years, as more and more money was spent... on what? It wasn't unions and labor, because we've already established labor only accounts for 10% of the cost of any business. Since you've been spending absurd amounts of money for declining result, it's a perfectly logical conclusion that you WANT the results to decline.
heliosPR1M3Feb 7, 2011
Exactly. Just what the world needed, another multi-million dollar way to kill others.
I have no idea why you are being put away friend.
bginocFeb 7, 2011
By the time the testing and production are complete, we will have spent billions making the elite richer and more powerful defend us from a nonexistent enemy while our infrastructure crumbles. The United States military is already twice as powerful as the rest of the world combined.
conservative_zombieFeb 7, 2011
I for one am glad we don't have a second rate military.
maxtericcFeb 7, 2011
As much as I understand where you're coming from about the rich getting richer, out of the billions of dollars being spent on military contracts, the vast majority goes to assembly line workers, skilled labor, engineers, scientists, and a myriad of other job titles.
This development is what keeps many tech companies in business as the private sector is struggling to make ends meet. If it weren't for government contracts and military based research you would see thousands, if not millions more American's without work.
And the upside to this? we're safer because of it. You make the exaggerated claim that the US has military twice as powerful as the rest of the world combined. That's far from accurate, and projects like these not only allow us to stay among the top powers in the world, but they also play a vital role in supporting the same economy everyone keeps saying it's destroying.
kaelyiestaFeb 7, 2011
Bulls**t.
The private sector struggles to endure the costs of government theft. Without it directing so much of our labor and resources to war mongering and reckless bubbles, we'd be far more prosperous.
These government workers wouldn't disappear if government spending stopped. Nor would the wealth used to fund these people disappear. It would just be in the hands of a free society, to be spent as each person in that society saw fit and to employ those people and more as they saw fit.
Unemployment would not increase, in fact it would decrease. The only society with permanent high unemployment(like ours) is one that is not free to manage itself properly. The very opposite of what you assert is what would happen. If it weren't for government contracts and military based research and all the other redistribution, our economy would be doing better.
jay2kFeb 7, 2011
A more efficient way to bomb people and only $636 million? Yeehaw!
constntcrisisFeb 7, 2011
drone2.0
jqp123Feb 7, 2011
Wow! Pretty soon, NASA will be the only government organization left arguing that pilots are still necessary.
fjm2112Feb 8, 2011
Pretty cool!!