Who'll be the better president? [Archive] - Page 10

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 01:21 AM

The reason for fundamental disagreement is a fundamental flaw and is a result of closed-mindedness and closed personal perspective though, which was the point I was going for.
That is, in itself, close-minded. It works on the assumption that people will change their mind and in your eyes, to your perspective; however, in the oppositions eyes, they feel the same way towards you. In the end, all we can do is speak our mind and agree to disagree.

The only "fundamental flaw" is the fact everyone sees everything in a different way. No two people agree 100% percent on everything (in a lot of cases, anything). As long as we don't kill each other over it, I don't see it as a flaw at all.

That may be true in the US, but not globally. There are still many parts of the world that operate under pure need. And even in the US pure need drives many, and "need" now takes a different context. My main point with that was that it has become so convoluted and gargantuan that it's somehow gotten out of control, it is an entity unto itself and we are slaves to it. Like I said, it's hard for me to explain in words, I doubt you understood most of what I said there (at least the way I meant it), and I don't blame you. :) :ohwell:
I'm talking what is commonly referred to as "the West." You can separate "the West" from the rest simply by looking at who is being severely effected by this global recession. "The West" has a greed-driven economy; the rest have a need-driven economy. "The West" fall and rise in relative unison; the rest couldn't care less about anything "relative."

Yes, there's a lot of people in "the West" that still fit in the need category but it's the few that don't that cause these greed-driven collapses.

I, for one, know that each and every American reading this thread is wholeheartedly loyal and committed to our United States of America, whether qualified to submit an honest vote or simply underage, and that each and every one of us American people submit honest respect and consideration for our nation's history, through rough unknowns and through glorious prosperity.

...
It's biased simply by the fact that most questions are worded in a way that makes McCain's answers YES and Obama's NO. YES is generally perceived as positive and NO is generally perceived as negative.

Now this is here (sorry for being an ass) it does give an interesting comparison, why would he [McCain] not favour cloning - i am assuming here that cloning also includes stem cell research. Which is about the niftyist thing since can openers.
Ever seen The Sixth Day? Cloning opens up possibilities that humans should not be investigating. It inevitably leads to "engineering" babies and the human perception of a "perfect" child/adult is generally uniform. The result is a species with even less genetic diversity than we currently have--so close, in fact, that one bug these babies and all their subsequent kin cannot fend off would result in almost assured extinction of the human population overnight. We should NEVER play God. It leads to everything that will ultimately destroy us. We gain nothing from cloning but have the potential to lose everything.

McCain supports "Adult Stem Cell" research, not "Embryonic Stem Cell" research. As far as I know, "cloning" means "Dolly the Sheep" experiments.

I believe cloning of organs should only be available to those under the age of 30 (cases where they would die young due to some kind of birth defect or disease). The last thing we need is 60-100 year-olds with 20 year-old innards. As much as we hate the idea of dying, we MUST make way for the young. To not do so is again, to contribute to the demise of the human race.

das müffin mann

Oct 31, 2008, 01:26 AM

we have MUCH to gain from cloning...it just has to be done responsibly, and has to be very controlled and regulated
and the sixth day was a pretty good movie
and i feel there really isn't anything wrong with embryonic stem cell research

farlex85

Oct 31, 2008, 01:35 AM

That is, in itself, close-minded. It works on the assumption that people will change their mind and in your eyes, to your perspective; however, in the oppositions eyes, they feel the same way towards you. In the end, all we can do is speak our mind and agree to disagree.

The only "fundamental flaw" is the fact everyone sees everything in a different way. No two people agree 100% percent on everything (in a lot of cases, anything). As long as we don't kill each other over it, I don't see it as a flaw at all.

I'm talking what is commonly referred to as "the West." You can separate "the West" from the rest simply by looking at who is being severely effected by this global recession. "The West" has a greed-driven economy; the rest have a need-driven economy. "The West" fall and rise in relative unison; the rest couldn't care less about anything "relative."

Yes, there's a lot of people in "the West" that still fit in the need category but it's the few that don't that cause these greed-driven collapses.

Nope I didn't say anything about changing one's mind. Everyone has an opinion on everything, the trick is recognizing fully why others have their opinion, and what merits that opinion has (b/c there is always some merit, doesn't have to change your mind, but it can alter it). Getting stuck in a "this is the way it is" mentality neglects so much, b/c there is simply too much for any one person to know. Again, this is hard for me to put into words, but it goes beyond simply disagreeing, or agreeing to disagree, it's an understanding that many different opinions can be right without another being wrong. We are intrinsically trapped within ourselves, but insight to the collective comes from the collective. It's relativism with a personal perspective. Or something like that. :laugh:

Here maybe an example. I understand your take on the second amendment completely. Humans kill each other, and better to have defense than to give would-be-attackers power. I don't think anyone at all should have guns, and would never myself use one, most likely even if that meant my own demise. I of course recognize that many would think this foolish, and on the issue I couldn't rightfully say that you shouldn't own a gun, b/c your argument holds merit. That doesn't mean I agree w/ it though, and in my mind working towards an environment where you would not feel compelled to own a gun would be a better goal than simply taking the stance that stricter gun control needs to happen (which would of course be the opposite partisan stance).

ShadowFold

Oct 31, 2008, 01:40 AM

Stem cell research is ESSENTIAL. We need it. And cloning humans would be cool.. Maybe if we got a cloned human that can talk and interact maybe religious radicals will stop their nonsense(maybe..).

DaedalusHelios

Oct 31, 2008, 01:45 AM

I, for one, know that each and every American reading this thread is wholeheartedly loyal and committed to our United States of America, whether qualified to submit an honest vote or simply underage, and that each and every one of us American people submit honest respect and consideration for our nation's history, through rough unknowns and through glorious prosperity.

When the devastating American Civil War came to a conclusion on April 9, 1865, former President Abraham Lincoln could finally focus most of his efforts on reconstruction and beginning to mend the deep scars between the North and South. When asked how defeated Confederates should be treated, Lincoln responded, "I'd let 'em up easy, let 'em up easy."

As Americans, I completely understand that we want facts the quick and easy way. Without further delay to proclaim a truthful generalization, the mass of textual and visual media we receive through the internet, television, political magazines, and regional newspapers all contribute to our effectively long-lasting worldviews on societies and governments.

Without further hesitation, I present to you a brief outline highlighting the platform of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama - an outline based on absolute objective truths and completely unbiased fact.

*PLEASE READ ALL POLITICAL STANCES LISTED BELOW BEFORE POSTING A REPLY*

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8896/2008platform1hi0.png
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8337/2008platform2uj6.png
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7419/2008platform3ex2.png
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/32/2008platform4ze1.png

Source links can be obtained by viewing the corresponding PDF file:

McCain / Obama Voter's Guide (http://wallbuilders.com/downloads/newsletter/VotersGuide.pdf)

Those are constitutionalist interpretations on your source. The constitutionalist party is very republican and forgets privacy rights and abortion rights to name a few. Privacy rights against modern technology would have been put in the constitution if they could have seen that far ahead. ;) The constitution was written before all modern technology and when our total population was laughable in modern terms. So to think the most literal translation of a document made to serve the needs of a tiny population without our technology, diversity, and knowledge is pretty short sighted by all those that think of life in america as different from the 1700's.

The constitution is a great document. No pork in it.

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 01:53 AM

and I think you should go to school to learn basic grammar and sentence structure.

sure sign you know your arguments are flawed and that you are full of it, attacking grammer, "you are the weakist link, goodbye!"

Taxes for SERVICES = a valid part of government.
Taxes to take my money and yours and give it to some crackhead == NOT!:banghead:

like I said, if you dont like taxes, then move someplace you dont have to pay them.

DaedalusHelios

Oct 31, 2008, 01:57 AM

sure sign you know your arguments are flawed and that you are full of sh!t, attacking grammer, "you are the weakist link, goodbye!"

like I said, if you dont like taxes, then move someplace you dont have to pay them, otherwise STFU.

Thats hilarious. I agree with you but you have to say it in a more friendly tone or people will try to get you infracted.

I just don't want to see the thread closed because somebody started a flame war. Welcome to TPU! :toast:

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 01:58 AM

Apparently you don't watch the news much. Ever heard of the Al Smith Dinner? I mean look how disrespectful they are being to each other! :slap:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08uk6PaaGNbYy/610x.jpg
FYI notice McCain turning his whole body?

Oh and here look at this! I mean McCain and Obama are hugging! Clearly they dont respect each other. :roll:http://www.moonbattery.com/mccain_obama.jpg

Dude Obama isn't a Saviour anymore than McCain is a Traitor. They both are cut from the same cloth. They both want power. Both are professional politicians and have no clue as to whats happening in this country. So with this being said Ill vote for the man who has served his country for longer and harder than the other. Not that Obama is a bad guy but look at the shape his state is in compared to McCains Arizona. That should tell you enough to have a little more faith in McCain and KNOW just because he's a republican doesn't make him inherently evil.

At the end of the day they ALL lie. We just have to pick the one that lies the least. :ohwell:
First is it just me or in that 2nd pic does it look like they are bout to make out?
VERY GAY!!!!! rofl

Its not McCain that scares me so much as the fact that when he dies in office that religious Reigh Nutter he picked as vice pres would be running things.(would call her a dumb blonde but shes not blonde....)

I know full well they both suck, I just FEAR obama/biden less then I fear palin becoming pres and mccain starting another war.......

das müffin mann

Oct 31, 2008, 02:02 AM

I know full well they both suck, I just FEAR obama/biden less then I fear palin becoming pres and mccain starting another war.......
sadly when you look at it, both campaigns are both based on fear, just like the media :rolleyes:

DaedalusHelios

Oct 31, 2008, 02:04 AM

McCain's Arizona has been moving up in crime rate in the last 7 years. So thats not exactly doing well. Besides, being a senator from a state doesn't mean it has much to do with how well its doing. Unless you take into account "pork on bills", and then you would be actually admitting McCain is far more corrupt. So that logic actually backfires on you.

DaedalusHelios

Oct 31, 2008, 02:08 AM

sadly when you look at it, both campaigns are both based on fear, just like the media :rolleyes:

Obama's campaign isn't about fear. He is taking the high road on debates and advertising. Unless you think likening McCain to Bush is smear. Its just accurate.

Palin's supporters at rallies chant "Kill Obama". Thats not the high road.:laugh:

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 02:13 AM

Thats hilarious. I agree with you but you have to say it in a more friendly tone or people will try to get you infracted.

I just don't want to see the thread closed because somebody started a flame war. Welcome to TPU! :toast:

it was ment to be funny, I see attacking grammer or spelling as the last resort when a person cant reply with anything better to counter somebody elses opinion.

erocker

Oct 31, 2008, 02:16 AM

Keep it civil and respectful towards one another please.

...And now back to your political devices.

ckoons1

Oct 31, 2008, 02:21 AM

Keep it civil and respectful towards one another please.

...And now back to your political devices.

On the matter of RESPECT let us not forget that McCain is a "WAR HERO". This may not mean a lot to the younger crowd but it means a lot to the older group. Think for a moment the price this man paid for US ,our country to be FREE. FREEDOM isn't FREE.

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 02:23 AM

Nope I didn't say anything about changing one's mind. Everyone has an opinion on everything, the trick is recognizing fully why others have their opinion, and what merits that opinion has (b/c there is always some merit, doesn't have to change your mind, but it can alter it). Getting stuck in a "this is the way it is" mentality neglects so much, b/c there is simply too much for any one person to know. Again, this is hard for me to put into words, but it goes beyond simply disagreeing, or agreeing to disagree, it's an understanding that many different opinions can be right without another being wrong. We are intrinsically trapped within ourselves, but insight to the collective comes from the collective. It's relativism with a personal perspective. Or something like that. :laugh:

Here maybe an example. I understand your take on the second amendment completely. Humans kill each other, and better to have defense than to give would-be-attackers power. I don't think anyone at all should have guns, and would never myself use one, most likely even if that meant my own demise. I of course recognize that many would think this foolish, and on the issue I couldn't rightfully say that you shouldn't own a gun, b/c your argument holds merit. That doesn't mean I agree w/ it though, and in my mind working towards an environment where you would not feel compelled to own a gun would be a better goal than simply taking the stance that stricter gun control needs to happen (which would of course be the opposite partisan stance).
It's one thing to dream and something completely different to legislate. With legislation we have only four options: 1) decide this is not something government can or should define and do nothing, 2) repeal a previous law, 3) amend a previous law, or 3) author something entirely new. In every case, it comes down to one of four choices: 1) Don't show up at all (don't support), 2) YAY (support), 3) NO (don't support), or 4) Present (don't support). As pointed out in the parenthesis, there's only two options: support or don't support. There is no middle ground. In law, you are in support of, or opposed to, everything. Anything between the two extremes is considered as being opposed. Nuanced answers like the one you gave doesn't work in legislation--that's why it comes down to support or oppose.

It really doesn't matter how nuanced something is, it can always be broken down to a support or oppose vote. Just try to think of a situation--a theoretical law--where support or oppose wouldn't work. You'll eventually come to a conclusion one way or another eventually. That is why legislation works. It asks the politicians if they fundamentally agree or disagree on the subject: nuance, if included, plays little role in the outcome.

I belong in bed so I may have to rewrite that one later...

McCain's Arizona has been moving up in crime rate in the last 7 years. So thats not exactly doing well. Besides, being a senator from a state doesn't mean it has much to do with how well its doing. Unless you take into account "pork on bills", and then you would be actually admitting McCain is far more corrupt. So that logic actually backfires on you.
A large white and hispanic population clashing. It is, to say the least, inevitable. The solution, most likely, is better schools which so far, rank "epic fail."

Obama's campaign isn't about fear. He is taking the high road on debates and advertising. Unless you think likening McCain to Bush is smear. Its just accurate.

Palin's supporters at rallies chant "Kill Obama". Thats not the high road.:laugh:
Agism ("erratic"), Sexism ("$150,000 on cloths"), Racism (Obama's statement "don't vote for him because he's black"), ... pretty much every discriminatory "-ism" on the books has been used against the Republican ticket by the Democrats. Let's not forget how Obama claimed there was "57 States" and forgot it was his 16th anniversary, not 15th. McCain didn't pick on him for those slip ups either. Frankly, McCain is actually being very nice to Obama. Unfortunately, that doesn't get votes.

Even invoking the name Bush is completely irrelevant to this election. Did McCain even mention "Clinton" in any of the debates? I think not--it's irrelevant to the campaign. And before you try to spin that one me, remember that Clinton signed into law legislation that promoted sub-McCain does have a lot of ammunition from the Clintons, as with Wright, but decided to to, as you say, "take the high road" and leave it alone.

McCain nor Palin approve of those chants but, as with any crowd, your control is limited to only how quickly the security can drag them out.

das müffin mann

Oct 31, 2008, 02:51 AM

On the matter of RESPECT let us not forget that McCain is a "WAR HERO". This may not mean a lot to the younger crowd but it means a lot to the older group. Think for a moment the price this man paid for US ,our country to be FREE. FREEDOM isn't FREE.

being a war hero is all nice and good but, being a hero of war doesn't necessarily mean your well suited for politics
i consider my brother a war hero, not in the sense of McCain (being tortured and all that jazz)
i respect McCain for the strength he has to endure all the atrocities he has been through, i just don't entirely agree with the mans political views man's political views or the way he has run his campaign (not that i really agree with obama either
btw my bro would NEVER make a good politician

also obama supporters have a lot of fear in them, if there is one thing i've noticed about each campaign is that both sides are absolutely TERRIFIED of the other candidate getting into office

and one last view point of mine
WHO REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT JOE THE NOT SO MUCH PLUMBER
if i have to hear about joe the plumber, bob the builder, or douchebag the useless commentator im going to loose it

farlex85

Oct 31, 2008, 02:52 AM

It's one thing to dream and something completely different to legislate. With legislation we have only four options: 1) decide this is not something government can or should define and do nothing, 2) repeal a previous law, 3) amend a previous law, or 3) author something entirely new. In every case, it comes down to one of four choices: 1) Don't show up at all (don't support), 2) YAY (support), 3) NO (don't support), or 4) Present (don't support). As pointed out in the parenthesis, there's only two options: support or don't support. There is no middle ground. In law, you are in support of, or opposed to, everything. Anything between the two extremes is considered as being opposed. Nuanced answers like the one you gave doesn't work in legislation--that's why it comes down to support or oppose.

It really doesn't matter how nuanced something is, it can always be broken down to a support or oppose vote. Just try to think of a situation--a theoretical law--where support or oppose wouldn't work. You'll eventually come to a conclusion one way or another eventually. That is why legislation works. It asks the politicians if they fundamentally agree or disagree on the subject: nuance, if included, plays little role in the outcome.

I belong in bed so I may have to rewrite that one later...

Your right, and my idealism and abstractness sometimes has no practical place, but that's really goal right, to meld dream and reality. I understand what you mean, it can eventually only go one of two ways when it comes to the vote, if we constantly debated everything with ourselves nothing would get done. Still, it seems to me like the thought process leading up to those votes may be where the nuanced collectivism can take place, and perhaps where we differ most is w/ the word fundamental. Fundamentally, I believe no one should own a gun. If I were to be congressman though (heaven forbid) and devoid of the external influences of partisanship and lobbyists, I would probably vote for gun rights (excluding the notion that everyone owns guns all the time anywhere, I would vote against that one). This wouldn't come from a fundamental belief or disagreement that guns should not be permitted, but an understanding of why they should (at least for the time being). And that thought process should in no way align me with any partisanship, nor should it have any effect on completely different subjects (making me fundamentally conservative or liberal). Hence, again, a lack of fundamentalism, in it's stead perhaps an overarching line in which I could be compared to many, with many schools of thought and others ideas. I am too small to believe I am fundamentally right all the time about the well-being of everyone, thus my vote does not, can not, stem from any fundamental opinion I hold.

Have a good one, thanks for humoring my meanderings. :laugh: :toast:

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 03:02 AM

being a war hero is all nice and good but, being a hero of war doesn't necessarily mean your well suited for politics
i consider my brother a war hero, not in the sense of McCain (being tortured and all that jazz)
i respect McCain for the strength he has to endure all the atrocities he has been through, i just don't entirely agree with the mans political views man's political views or the way he has run his campaign (not that i really agree with obama either
btw my bro would NEVER make a good politician

also obama supporters have a lot of fear in them, if there is one thing i've noticed about each campaign is that both sides are absolutely TERRIFIED of the other candidate getting into office

and one last view point of mine
WHO REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT JOE THE NOT SO MUCH PLUMBER
if i have to hear about joe the plumber, bob the builder, or douchebag the useless commentator im going to loose it

maby all us sain geeks need to head to another country and start a colony, laws against any kind of extreamists.....ok maby let the intel/amd nvidia/ati fanboi's fight it out, those arguements are less likely to lead to more then a couple geeks slaping at eachother :P

ckoons1

Oct 31, 2008, 03:06 AM

maby all us sain geeks need to head to another country and start a colony, laws against any kind of extreamists.....ok maby let the intel/amd nvidia/ati fanboi's fight it out, those arguements are less likely to lead to more then a couple geeks slaping at eachother :P

what about JOE THE COMPUTER GUY HA!HA!HA!

das müffin mann

Oct 31, 2008, 03:09 AM

what about JOE THE COMPUTER GUY HA!HA!HA!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/jamesbob666/bang.gif
:D
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/jamesbob666/patriotind.gif

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 07:53 AM

lol, joe the computer guy who spends his time fixing joe the plumbers and joe sixpacks computers :P

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 09:49 AM

On the matter of RESPECT let us not forget that McCain is a "WAR HERO". This may not mean a lot to the younger crowd but it means a lot to the older group. Think for a moment the price this man paid for US ,our country to be FREE. FREEDOM isn't FREE.

For the purpose of my ignorance, in his case, could you please define what is meant by "hero"? hero seems to be a word quite freely used in US politics in relation to someone who has served in the Armed Forces and who has been involved in conflict.

IMO, being a member of the Armed Forces even if you did well in your career within the Armed Forces) no better equips anyone to be a better president than say a Doctor, lawyer or Police chief.

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 10:41 AM

Your right, and my idealism and abstractness sometimes has no practical place, but that's really goal right, to meld dream and reality. I understand what you mean, it can eventually only go one of two ways when it comes to the vote, if we constantly debated everything with ourselves nothing would get done. Still, it seems to me like the thought process leading up to those votes may be where the nuanced collectivism can take place, and perhaps where we differ most is w/ the word fundamental. Fundamentally, I believe no one should own a gun. If I were to be congressman though (heaven forbid) and devoid of the external influences of partisanship and lobbyists, I would probably vote for gun rights (excluding the notion that everyone owns guns all the time anywhere, I would vote against that one). This wouldn't come from a fundamental belief or disagreement that guns should not be permitted, but an understanding of why they should (at least for the time being). And that thought process should in no way align me with any partisanship, nor should it have any effect on completely different subjects (making me fundamentally conservative or liberal). Hence, again, a lack of fundamentalism, in it's stead perhaps an overarching line in which I could be compared to many, with many schools of thought and others ideas. I am too small to believe I am fundamentally right all the time about the well-being of everyone, thus my vote does not, can not, stem from any fundamental opinion I hold.

Have a good one, thanks for humoring my meanderings. :laugh: :toast:
Oh contraire, you fundamentally agree that people should have guns. As always, the devil is in the details. You listed the detail that would conflict with your fundamental value and force you to oppose it. So fundamentally, you agree.

About nuance, I like the metaphor of a pearl. The fundamental belief or value is the irritant in the clam that caused the pearl to form. The layers coating the irritant is effectively the nuance and all the reasons that conflict with that fundamental belief. The thickness of the layers depends on how specific your definition of that fundamental belief or value is and when you test something against that fundamental value, you chip away at the layers until you either give up or reach the center. In this case, you reached the center coming to a conclusion that you fundamental agree people should have guns but, you chipped away some layers of that pearl to explain the conditions.

The nuance of a dreamy world is actually not a fundamental belief--it is a layer on the pearl that defines your stance on gun rights. If you came to a logical conclusion that that dreamy idea isn't so dreamy, your fundamental beliefs could change...the pearl collapses in on itself so to speak.

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 10:44 AM

tatty dont say that, he is An Hero (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/An_hero) and a republican(this matters because if he was a dem he would be called a lier like kerry was)

I personaly feel that its great he served out country, but dont feel it makes him any better choice then anybody else, infact in this case I feel it could be the exect oposite, shellshocked vet from nam and a crazy hick soccer(or is it hocky?) mom from alaska IMHO dont make a good pairing to run any country, well maby alaska when it scedes from the union, its been alleged that palin and her husband are or have been members of the "Alaskan Independance Party" Once Sorce (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html).(this is just as valid as the arguements about obama being a racist and non-christian)

Also theres good cause (at least from comments in this thred) to say palin and her husband are socialists Todd Palin is a member of a socialist organization Sorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin#Career)

need I go on, anything you can pull out to use against one you can counter with something just as "bad" about the other..........

blah wish we could get this election over and stop the fighting about whos better so we can move on to bitching about whoever gets in office :P

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 10:54 AM

For the purpose of my ignorance, in his case, could you please define what is meant by "hero"? hero seems to be a word quite freely used in US politics in relation to someone who has served in the Armed Forces and who has been involved in conflict.

IMO, being a member of the Armed Forces even if you did well in your career within the Armed Forces) no better equips anyone to be a better president than say a Doctor, lawyer or Police chief.
Someone people look up to out of sheer respect.

Considering the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, experience does help; however, there are other issues that often trump that duty--at least during elections. I mean, Ulysses S. Grant did a pretty miserable job because he was a general without a war. George W. Bush did a pretty miserable job because he's a governor that had to face two wars. Some Presidents, like George Washington, fair well in many duties of the Presidency while others do not.

A doctor has no experience in any duty he/she will have as the President.

A police chief is more qualified by having more managerial chores than a doctor but, same as the doctor, the experience from being a police chief helps little in duties of the President.

We have already seen too many lawyers. Yes they are more qualified than a police chief and doctor but they're also trained spinners (aka liars). A spinner may be good for the country in some regards but in the end, it is bad for the people. Bill Clinton used his spinning skills to convince the public in his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech.

tatty dont say that, he is An Hero (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/An_hero) and a republican(this matters because if he was a dem he would be called a lier like kerry was)

I personaly feel that its great he served out country, but dont feel it makes him any better choice then anybody else, infact in this case I feel it could be the exect oposite, shellshocked vet from nam and a crazy hick soccer(or is it hocky?) mom from alaska IMHO dont make a good pairing to run any country, well maby alaska when it scedes from the union, its been alleged that palin and her husband are or have been members of the "Alaskan Independance Party" Once Sorce (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html).(this is just as valid as the arguements about obama being a racist and non-christian)

Also theres good cause (at least from comments in this thred) to say palin and her husband are socialists Todd Palin is a member of a socialist organization Sorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin#Career)
If Alaska wanted to secede from the union, I really don't have a problem with that. IMO, it belongs with Canada. Yeah we'd lose a lot of territory and resources but it is their choice.

There is nothing on that link to suggest Palin is socialist.

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 11:11 AM

wrong
Career

Palin is a union member belonging to the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers).[9]

as stated in past pages, many republicans feel the Unions are socialist organization(infact thats exectly what a couple people have said in past pages of this thred)

see, all you need to do is learn how the mind of spinners work, then you will understand you can SPIN ANYTHING YOU WANT, it just takes an agile mind.

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 11:16 AM

as stated in past pages, many republicans feel the Unions are socialist organization(infact thats exectly what a couple people have said in past pages of this thred)

see, all you need to do is learn how the mind of spinners work, then you will understand you can SPIN ANYTHING YOU WANT, it just takes an agile mind.
I don't like unions but I don't see them as socialist. A key component of socialism is the statement Obama keeps making: "spread the wealth." Unions are simply third party leadership hierarchies because they feel the first party leadership does not adequately represent them.

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 11:50 AM

unions protect workers from unreputable employeers is how I see it.

but alot of people see them as communist/socialist because the russians and such had unions :P

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 12:13 PM

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 12:17 PM

Someone people look up to out of sheer respect.

Considering the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, experience does help; however, there are other issues that often trump that duty--at least during elections. I mean, Ulysses S. Grant did a pretty miserable job because he was a general without a war. George W. Bush did a pretty miserable job because he's a governor that had to face two wars. Some Presidents, like George Washington, fair well in many duties of the Presidency while others do not.

A doctor has no experience in any duty he/she will have as the President.

A police chief is more qualified by having more managerial chores than a doctor but, same as the doctor, the experience from being a police chief helps little in duties of the President.

We have already seen too many lawyers. Yes they are more qualified than a police chief and doctor but they're also trained spinners (aka liars). A spinner may be good for the country in some regards but in the end, it is bad for the people. Bill Clinton used his spinning skills to convince the public in his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech.

If Alaska wanted to secede from the union, I really don't have a problem with that. IMO, it belongs with Canada. Yeah we'd lose a lot of territory and resources but it is their choice.

There is nothing on that link to suggest Palin is socialist.

Yes you could easily say that the President is the Commander in Chief so experience does help but Defence wont take up the biggest part of your GDP so perhaps a Doctor or other prominent figure I mentioned could be equally if not more experienced in other important fields, at the end of the day, rarely would a serving officer below about 1 star level have full strategic experience and anyways, thats why he has a Defence Secretary and Chief of the General Staff.

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 12:31 PM

Yes you could easily say that the President is the Commander in Chief so experience does help but Defence wont take up the biggest part of your GDP so perhaps a Doctor or other prominent figure I mentioned could be equally if not more experienced in other important fields, at the end of the day, rarely would a serving officer below about 1 star level have full strategic experience and anyways, thats why he has a Defence Secretary and Chief of the General Staff.
Defense is the single largest expenditure the government makes (entitlement programs are starting to threaten that though).

Even though the President has people to advise, it's still him/her making the decisions. A lot of failed wars can be linked to a failed administration (Nixon with Vietnam, Bush with Iraq). Yes, they have to be pretty high ranking to benefit from military training (Bush is an example of not having enough) but they don't have to be as high as a 1 star general to be able to apply what they learned in the military to their policy.

McCain is a hero because no one, even the Vietnamese, can stop him from serving his country. Most vets would be happy to retire after what he went though but he didn't. Instead, he went to Congress to serve his country in a different way. He is a tireless servant of his country, dispite what he has been through, and that is what makes him a hero.

Let me put that in context: During a townhall meeting back in the 1980's when he was running for the House, a gentleman asked him, "Why should we vote for you because you have only lived in the State of Arizona for a short while?" McCain paused and replied, "The only place I lived for a significant amount of time was Hanoi." A similar question was never asked again.

newconroer

Oct 31, 2008, 12:45 PM

You misunderstand me, I was not suggesting he is not a hero, meerly asking what he has done to acheive "hero" status as I don know, hence my ignorance comment.

Primarily that he survived as a POW for several years, and rather than fall down into the gutter upon coming home/being released, he did something with his life.

And there is a good reason that military personnel can make for good leadership, as the morals, ethics, traits and principles they possess are of high quality, such that you would want a nation's leader to exhibit. The only thing they might lack, is charm or social appeal, but naturally that's easier to obtain, when you have a whole cabinet of people 'advising' you on what to say or what not to say.

I find that a much better premise for a leader, as opposed to someone who is a pure civilian with no concept of the military spectrum, or pressure under fire. They also tend to lack the same moral/ethic qualities and they can be too soft.

If you can find someone though who combines the best of both worlds, then you have a winner. And I felt Ron Paul was that man. A military man who definatley saw action, a doctor with a high level of compassion and professionalism, and an educated man in the most important issue that America now faces : Economy. He's also a good speaker, and has high resolve for his convictions, which just happen to be traditionally old-school(something America is sorely in need of), and his whole campaign is built upon the platform of respecting the Constitution, which has to be the greatest testament to any government ever put in place.

There's three government and political systems that stand above all the rest in terms of effectiveness, appeal, strength and relevance.

Roman demoracy
American republic
Deutsche nazism

All three fell down because of bad foreign relations and policies, or the forced intervention of external relations and policies.

The Romans ended up distrusting one another, falling into a society of secret alliances and elite counsels, abandoning their deomcratic intent, because they let uninformed and unworthy 'citizens' twist their system the wrong way around.

The Nazis were destined to fail simply because they basically forced the U.S. to get involved. A system that was started to help regain the glory of Germany from those on the outside that would come and try to tear it down, ended up falling to more people who came to tear it down.

The Americans/U.S. is like a shooting star, burning brightly, rising fast, but falling faster. The inability to control foreign ideas, concepts, influences and influx; the bad management of foreign relations, economic policies, and entangling alliances whether economic or militaristic; the undying belief that they have a 'right' and a 'responsibility' to 'help' others across the planet; and their continued efforts to turn their back on the Constitution have brought them to this point.

How anyone can think that men such as McCain or Obama can solve anything, pretty much sums up how out of touch people have become with the reality of the modern world.

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 12:49 PM

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem supporting Ron Paul if Ron Paul wasn't against the Iraqi war. I don't like anyone that wants to leave any job half finished.

newconroer

Oct 31, 2008, 01:04 PM

Keep in mind, he's against the war for the right reasons.

He isn't some flower power liberal nut saying 'make love and peace, not war.'

He sees the Iraqi war as not only unjustified, but more importantly, it's costing America the lives of their military youth, as well as destroying their economy.

He doesn't want to leave any job half finished, but to treat the Iraqi war(which is more or less never ending) as a job, would be unfair to any candidate battling the issue, because the only one way to end it with a 'military victory,' would be to simply nuke the whole place(which I do support. That's my idea of proper American intervention).

What he wants, is a humble victory; and that entails saving the lives of men who shouldn't be over there dying for a bunch of twisted, whacked out middle-easterners, and it also entails saving precious money that he doesn't want to use to get rich, but to pump straight back into a FREE market.

His comment about Reagan's memoirs on the Middle East relations in the 80s is extremely potent.
He said that Reagan claimed he would never turn-tail and run in a fight, but in his memoirs Reagan later wrote that he had no idea the chaotic nature of Middle Eastern politics.

Anyways... at this point I'm hoping one of two things happens soon: Either Jesus comes back, or we all blow each other up. While life can be enjoyable, and living is better than dying...there's no reason future generations should have to inherit such a wretched world.

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 01:17 PM

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem supporting Ron Paul if Ron Paul wasn't against the Iraqi war. I don't like anyone that wants to leave any job half finished.

You do know that there's nothing in particular about the Iraq war that Ron Paul opposes -- Paul opposes any intervention in foreign governments (unless they attack the US directly -- note that he voted for the authorization of force to capture Bin Laden, which included incursions into Afghanistan). He's quite consistent, and that's why I have a lot of respect for him.

And furthermore -- the Iraqi government is now asking the US to leave. The job isn't "half-finished" anymore -- it's over. :D Time to go home.

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 01:23 PM

You do know that there's nothing in particular about the Iraq war that Ron Paul opposes -- Paul opposes any intervention in foreign governments (unless they attack the US directly -- note that he voted for the authorization of force to capture Bin Laden, which included incursions into Afghanistan). He's quite consistent, and that's why I have a lot of respect for him.

And furthermore -- the Iraqi government is now asking the US to leave. The job isn't "half-finished" anymore -- it's over. :D Time to go home.

no no no, we need to stay, after all the war profiteering isnt over yet they could wring at least another 8 years out of it if mccain gets in!!!!

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 01:27 PM

no no no, we need to stay, after all the war profiteering isnt over yet they could wring at least another 8 years out of it if mccain gets in!!!!

Bah -- Dick Cheney's former company (Halliburton) has already made billions from no-bid war contracts. Time for the troops to leave -- the oil contracts should provide enough money for America, and they'll last a lot more than eight years. ;)

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 01:39 PM

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 01:45 PM

There's three government and political systems that stand above all the rest in terms of effectiveness, appeal, strength and relevance.

Roman demoracy
American republic
Deutsche nazism

All three fell down because of bad foreign relations and policies, or the forced intervention of external relations and policies.

The Romans ended up distrusting one another, falling into a society of secret alliances and elite counsels, abandoning their deomcratic intent, because they let uninformed and unworthy 'citizens' twist their system the wrong way around.

The Nazis were destined to fail simply because they basically forced the U.S. to get involved. A system that was started to help regain the glory of Germany from those on the outside that would come and try to tear it down, ended up falling to more people who came to tear it down.

The Americans/U.S. is like a shooting star, burning brightly, rising fast, but falling faster. The inability to control foreign ideas, concepts, influences and influx; the bad management of foreign relations, economic policies, and entangling alliances whether economic or militaristic; the undying belief that they have a 'right' and a 'responsibility' to 'help' others across the planet; and their continued efforts to turn their back on the Constitution have brought them to this point.

.

You missed out probably the most significant one, The Mongol Empire under Ghengis Khan :p Also, the French may well argue with you over the success of your republic in comparision to theirs!

SK-1

Oct 31, 2008, 02:09 PM

Obama is really bipartisan.....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Off_the_plane.html?showall

And this is FAIR,...NOT!

Hang an effigy of OBAMA,...GO TO JAIL.......
http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/574675.html

Hand a effigy of a woman,.... GET OUT OF JAIL FREE :roll::roll:
http://cbs2.com/local/Sarah.Palin.Effigy.2.852046.html

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 02:10 PM

He sees the Iraqi war as not only unjustified, but more importantly, it's costing America the lives of their military youth, as well as destroying their economy.
Justified or not doesn't mean we don't have commitments to fulfill. The only thing to take away from "justification" is to not repeat the same mistake in the future. In that regard, he shares more in common with liberals than conservatives.

There is no proof the war is "destroying their economy." Also, the "youth" that died did so knowing the risks and the rewards.

You do know that there's nothing in particular about the Iraq war that Ron Paul opposes -- Paul opposes any intervention in foreign governments (unless they attack the US directly -- note that he voted for the authorization of force to capture Bin Laden, which included incursions into Afghanistan). He's quite consistent, and that's why I have a lot of respect for him.

And furthermore -- the Iraqi government is now asking the US to leave. The job isn't "half-finished" anymore -- it's over. :D Time to go home.
I oppose his isolationist mentality too. It didn't work up to WWII and it doesn't work today. World Wars only happen if they are permitted to take place.

The Iraqi government is "asking" us to leave because finally the military objectives were achieved (McCain, again). Imagine if McCain was in charge in 2000--the war wouldn't have been permitted to drag on as Bush allowed. Ron Paul was in the Democrat's pocket saying it was wrong to be in Iraq in the first place so we have to get out. Again, he would rather Iraq go down in history as a decisive defeat, like Vietnam, than a decisive victory.

Ron aul is a Democrat on foreign policy and a Republican on domestic policy. I feel that the President's primary jobs are foreign policy and commander of the armed forces--he gets a "fail" mark from me on both issues.

Bah -- Dick Cheney's former company (Halliburton) has already made billions from no-bid war contracts. Time for the troops to leave -- the oil contracts should provide enough money for America, and they'll last a lot more than eight years. ;)
Cheney didn't see a penny of Halliburton's profit.

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 02:17 PM

There is no proof the war is "destroying their economy." Also, the "youth" that died did so knowing the risks and the rewards.

War racks up huge debt -- always has, always will. If you refuse to raise taxes while waging a war (or afterwards), your economy's going to be in trouble.

And how about the youth that were promised they "could be stationed anywhere they want" by military recruiters? :laugh: Lots fall for that line. Their fault, I guess?

Cheney didn't see a penny of Halliburton's profit.

I'm sure the he did, since I'm almost positive he owns vast amounts of their stock: http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1225224000000&chddm=623972&q=NYSE:HAL&ntsp=0

I'm sure you'll argue that the profits are completely unrelated to the war, of course.

SK-1

Oct 31, 2008, 02:21 PM

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem supporting Ron Paul if Ron Paul wasn't against the Iraqi war. I don't like anyone that wants to leave any job half finished.

I did. The only problem was the press covering the fringe of his backers, you know, the ones that believe Dick Cheney was in an underground bunker directing all of the events of 9-11:wtf:

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 02:26 PM

War racks up huge debt -- always has, always will. If you refuse to raise taxes while waging a war (or afterwards), your economy's going to be in trouble.

And how about the youth that were promised they "could be stationed anywhere they want" by military recruiters? :laugh: Lots fall for that line. Their fault, I guess?
We are in the position we are in today because of the huge profits we made during and after WWII.

They have the option to be discharged at almost any time. If they really had a problem with going to Iraq, they could leave.

I'm sure the he did, since I'm almost positive he owns vast amounts of their stock: ...

I'm sure you'll argue that the profits are completely unrelated to the war, of course.
Investigations found no foul play on Cheney's behalf. Find an federal investigation that did find foul play and I would believe you. Just like the McCain = Bush jargon, the Cheney = Halliburton jargon is just as annoying.

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 02:33 PM

We are in the position we are in today because of the huge profits we made during and after WWII.

They have the option to be discharged at almost any time. If they really had a problem with going to Iraq, they could leave.

Huge profits from WWII? That's funny -- remember how the income tax rate after WWII ended was something like 80% on top earners for years, right?

And Discharged? When they're serving a four-year contract? Any time they want to? Something tells me it's a little bit harder than that.

Investigations found no foul play on Cheney's behalf. Find an federal investigation that did find foul play and I would believe you. Just like the McCain = Bush jargon, the Cheney = Halliburton jargon is just as annoying.
Who's talking about foul play? I'm talking about profits -- you really don't need to break laws to earn profit. ;)

There's no conspiracies where there's profits to be made -- it's just business.

Bigjohn

Oct 31, 2008, 02:33 PM

Obama's campaign isn't about fear. He is taking the high road on debates and advertising. Unless you think likening McCain to Bush is smear. Its just accurate.

Palin's supporters at rallies chant "Kill Obama". Thats not the high road.:laugh:

Disproven as a democrat smear attempt. The FBI on site - 4 agents in the crowd and on stage - say it never happened.

Obama's "high road" is to say "Don't question me, that's just a destratction - I want to CHANGE (but not tell you exactly what or how because I am making all these promises that I'll never be able to keep....) and to talk about who I am or what my character might be is just a destraction... Hell, just because I said "long live palestine" and some anti-semetic shit at a dinner for a terrorist, my friends at the LA Times will keep that under water untill after i'm anointed..."

ckoons1

Oct 31, 2008, 02:44 PM

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 03:20 PM

Huge profits from WWII? That's funny -- remember how the income tax rate after WWII ended was something like 80% on top earners for years, right?
Love to see a source on that.

And Discharged? When they're serving a four-year contract? Any time they want to? Something tells me it's a little bit harder than that.
The worst penalty they face is three months in jail. Some are eligible to be honorably discharged though.

Who's talking about foul play? I'm talking about profits -- you really don't need to break laws to earn profit. ;)

There's no conspiracies where there's profits to be made -- it's just business.
Exactly, so why even bring up Cheney and Halliburton?

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 03:38 PM

Defense is the single largest expenditure the government makes (entitlement programs are starting to threaten that though).

Even though the President has people to advise, it's still him/her making the decisions. A lot of failed wars can be linked to a failed administration (Nixon with Vietnam, Bush with Iraq). Yes, they have to be pretty high ranking to benefit from military training (Bush is an example of not having enough) but they don't have to be as high as a 1 star general to be able to apply what they learned in the military to their policy.

McCain is a hero because no one, even the Vietnamese, can stop him from serving his country. Most vets would be happy to retire after what he went though but he didn't. Instead, he went to Congress to serve his country in a different way. He is a tireless servant of his country, dispite what he has been through, and that is what makes him a hero.

Let me put that in context: During a townhall meeting back in the 1980's when he was running for the House, a gentleman asked him, "Why should we vote for you because you have only lived in the State of Arizona for a short while?" McCain paused and replied, "The only place I lived for a significant amount of time was Hanoi." A similar question was never asked again.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 03:41 PM

what a choice
#1 MCcain slow grind forward
#2 Obama a gamble with our future. could go forward fast or backwards fast. kinda scary with his lack of experience. forward could be great backwards could cause a DEPRESSION

You dont need Obama to get you into a depression.....GWB has pretty much scored full points for that himself :D

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 03:41 PM

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Heh, entitlement programs already did take over defense spending.

Still, I was asking for a source on that 80% figure you gave me.

Tatty_One

Oct 31, 2008, 03:45 PM

Heh, entitlement programs already did take over defense spending.

Still, I was asking for a source on that 80% figure you gave me.

80% figure I gave you???? for what?

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 04:03 PM

80% figure I gave you???? for what?
Sorry, mdm. :banghead:

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 04:19 PM

You dont need Obama to get you into a depression.....GWB has pretty much scored full points for that himself :D

its not bush, just ask the republicans, its all the dems fault, everything is, gotta be clintons fault(somebody has said this a few times, everythings clintons fault!!!!)

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 04:20 PM

Disproven as a democrat smear attempt. The FBI on site - 4 agents in the crowd and on stage - say it never happened.

Obama's "high road" is to say "Don't question me, that's just a destratction - I want to CHANGE (but not tell you exactly what or how because I am making all these promises that I'll never be able to keep....) and to talk about who I am or what my character might be is just a destraction... Hell, just because I said "long live palestine" and some anti-semetic shit at a dinner for a terrorist, my friends at the LA Times will keep that under water untill after i'm anointed..."

once it was found to be "False" supposedly, but theres FILM of people saying that stuff at a rally with palin and she just smiles like shes loving it.......

mccain on the other hand has been recorded correcting people who bad mouth him calling him an "ay-rab" and "muslim" and "terrorist", palin......she incurages it from what i have seen.

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 04:31 PM

Love to see a source on that.

The worst penalty they face is three months in jail. Some are eligible to be honorably discharged though.

Exactly, so why even bring up Cheney and Halliburton?

I'm really surprised you've never heard about post-WWII tax rates -- ask your grandparents about it sometime. Look it up on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States), and then choose your lead from there -- the wikipedia article gets it's information from a very neat census report: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p2-01.pdf

And I really hope you're not considering "deserting" as a useful alternative to serving in war, because that's what it sounds like. :wtf:

I brought up Cheney and Halliburton because you stated that Cheney has never seen one penny from Halliburton's war profiteering, which I find to be laughable.

However, if you want to believe that the former head of a company in no way benefits from that company's profits, even after he leaves, feel free. :shadedshu

By the way, looks like the racist Republicans are out in force in Florida:

The head of the Hillsborough GOP, David Storck, distributed an email from a Republican Party volunteer saying the voters are a threat.

That's because, as the volunteer says in the email, he sees "car loads of black Obama supporters coming from the inner city to cast their votes for Obama."

It goes on to say, "This is their chance to get a black president and they seem to care little the he is at minimum a socialist and probably Marxist in his core beliefs." The Republican volunteer says that is because, "After all he is black- no experience or accomplishments but he is black."

Hillsborough Commissioner Kevin White says, "There's no place in our community for those types of views." White, who can't believe the email was distributed, says Storck should resign.[source (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=93204&provider=top)]

This is disgusting. The whole PDF of the guy's email is even worse.

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 04:47 PM

I'm really surprised you've never heard about post-WWII tax rates -- ask your grandparents about it sometime. Look it up on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States), and then choose your lead from there -- the wikipedia article gets it's information from a very neat census report: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p2-01.pdf
Interesting how the interest rates were so high under the "census" and not under the IRS. I question how much of those 80% taxes were actually paid.

And I really hope you're not considering "deserting" as a useful alternative to serving in war, because that's what it sounds like. :wtf:
If they don't like it, they can leave. Whatever punishment they get charged with is infinitely better than death so, the choice is in their hands.

I brought up Cheney and Halliburton because you stated that Cheney has never seen one penny from Halliburton's war profiteering, which I find to be laughable.

However, if you want to believe that the former head of a company in no way benefits from that company's profits, even after he leaves, feel free. :shadedshu
He might be seeing some of it. Regardless, he is irrelevent in this election.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 04:53 PM

If they don't like it, they can leave. Whatever punishment they get charged with is infinitely better than death so, the choice is in their hands.

I find your lack of faith in American servicemen... disturbing.

I'd like to think that they'd stick through it to the end of their term, even if they had been lied to at the beginning. True heroes, you know?

das müffin mann

Oct 31, 2008, 05:00 PM

no service men cannot just "leave" ever hear of a court marshal? that and most of them would not just up and abandon their buddies...

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 05:03 PM

no service men cannot just "leave" ever hear of a court marshal? that and most of them would not just up and abandon their buddies...

Ford was making the argument that a court marshal was probably preferable to continuing to serve in the hellhole that is Iraq. Though I agree with his sentiment, I differ with his methods.

das müffin mann

Oct 31, 2008, 05:05 PM

i see, i really should read the entirety of what i missed, but im short on time so :D

DaedalusHelios

Oct 31, 2008, 05:11 PM

Disproven as a democrat smear attempt. The FBI on site - 4 agents in the crowd and on stage - say it never happened.

Obama's "high road" is to say "Don't question me, that's just a destratction - I want to CHANGE (but not tell you exactly what or how because I am making all these promises that I'll never be able to keep....) and to talk about who I am or what my character might be is just a destraction... Hell, just because I said "long live palestine" and some anti-semetic shit at a dinner for a terrorist, my friends at the LA Times will keep that under water untill after i'm anointed..."

The FBI is in direct command of the president. Would the president say, "guys lets make sure you tell the truth to the press and expose somebody in the republican party for having anti-black supporters". Mission Accomplished??? Get real. :wtf:

magibeg

Oct 31, 2008, 05:15 PM

The FBI is in direct command of the president. Would the president say, "guys lets make sure you tell the truth to the press and expose somebody in the republican party for having anti-black supporters". Mission Accomplished??? Get real. :wtf:

Its high level corruption at its finest of course.

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 05:16 PM

*gives Bigjohn a taist of trickel down* ;) ;) ;)

DaedalusHelios

Oct 31, 2008, 05:22 PM

*gives Bigjohn a taist of trickel down* ;) ;) ;)

In trickle down economics the poor get to eat atleast. They fish their meals out of garbage cans. :(

But in all seriousness, if you lack social programs, you end up creating a situation for extreme desperation. Extreme desperation leads to crime, and that usually being violent crime.

Its not a "you give a mouse a cookie" scenario either. These people just need enough to survive. They are still going to be in poverty, but that doesn't mean they have to starve/freeze to death.

PS. Trickle down economics, is against almost all social programs.

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 05:29 PM

In trickle down economics the poor get to eat atleast. They fish their meals out of garbage cans. :(

But in all seriousness, if you lack social programs, you end up creating a situation for extreme desperation. Extreme desperation leads to crime, and that usually being violent crime.

Its not a "you give a mouse a cookie" scenario either. These people just need enough to survive. They are still going to be in poverty, but that doesn't mean they have to starve/freeze to death.

PS. Trickle down economics, is against almost all social programs.

Come on, you have to look at it like an objectivist (like BigJohn) -- if they weren't so stupid and worthless they wouldn't be poor in the first place. Why help them at all? :laugh:

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 05:32 PM

yeah if anything we should just shoot all the poor, stupid, imperfect people, oh wait, that means at one point we would all endup being shot........well guess it would make the world a bit quieter :P

DaedalusHelios

Oct 31, 2008, 05:46 PM

I don't believe the NeoCons want the poor dead but I think they believe the poor should simply fend for themselves. Makes them "careless and reckless" but not murderers.

You let the poor get desperate enough and they will be at your doorstep, I promise you that. Its only logical to keep the poor surviving so they feel they have something to lose if they break the law. Otherwise its expected that they would break the law to survive. Its like cornering a wild animal. People do almost anything to survive if you make them desperate enough.

Bigjohn

Oct 31, 2008, 06:24 PM

This is the kind of wacko nut-job (http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/erica-jong-tells-italians-obama-loss-will-spark-second-american-civil-war-blood-will-r) we have supporting Obama...

Bigjohn

Oct 31, 2008, 06:34 PM

I don't like unions but I don't see them as socialist. A key component of socialism is the statement Obama keeps making: "spread the wealth." Unions are simply third party leadership hierarchies because they feel the first party leadership does not adequately represent them.

Unions are legalized mobs who, through the force of their "gang" then intimidate employers into paying people more than their worth. If your skill set = "would you like fries with that", and a happy meal sells for $3.99, how on earth do you think you deserve 10$ an hour?? Same for those nutjob unions who've ruined the best autombile industry in the world up in detroit. No money to invest in technology or improvement, because the unions take it all.

unions protect workers from unreputable employeers is how I see it.

but alot of people see them as communist/socialist because the russians and such had unions :P
Unions existed way before soviet russia, and "union of soviet socialist republics" has nothing to do with the organized labor or trade unions.

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem supporting Ron Paul if Ron Paul wasn't against the Iraqi war. I don't like anyone that wants to leave any job half finished.
I agree. If you start something, finish it. Then leave. But I did vote for Ron Paul here in the georgia primary.

Unions most certainly are considered socialists in the UK, but is that a bad thing? No probably not.
Again, organized legal gangs are typically a bad thing.... and that is really what most unions are. Did you know that Obama supports a measure that REMOVES THE SECRET BALLOT from union organizing votes??

The FBI is in direct command of the president. Would the president say, "guys lets make sure you tell the truth to the press and expose somebody in the republican party for having anti-black supporters". Mission Accomplished??? Get real. :wtf:

Oh god, daedalus... you are so full of Obama-Aide that you're drowing in it. It's simply and purely racist for BLACK PEOPLE to vote for obama FOR his color alone, and people are doing just that, by the THOUSANDS.

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 06:46 PM

You let the poor get desperate enough and they will be at your doorstep, I promise you that. Its only logical to keep the poor surviving so they feel they have something to lose if they break the law. Otherwise its expected that they would break the law to survive. Its like cornering a wild animal. People do almost anything to survive if you make them desperate enough.

Aye -- Ronald Reagan and the Republicans of that time understood this perfectly. That's why they increased the Earned Income Credit to such huge levels -- give the poor just enough where they don't have to work (and thus don't better themselves), but don't take them off the government teat completely, or they'll revolt.

It's amazing how their mindset has changed today -- all this talk of "Marxism" from McCain and Palin is amazing. They should look to those Republicans that have come before them, and continue with the particular socialism that they're so good at. :laugh:

I agree. If you start something, finish it. Then leave. But I did vote for Ron Paul here in the georgia primary.

Ron Paul didn't start the war in Iraq, therefore he's got nothing to finish. It's not his job to fix it, and he's not "cutting and running" by suggesting the US leaves. ;)

Oh god, daedalus... you are so full of Obama-Aide that you're drowing in it. It's simply and purely racist for BLACK PEOPLE to vote for obama FOR his color alone, and people are doing just that, by the THOUSANDS.

That is the worst deflection I've ever seen. You didn't even try to refute his point about the current Republican Administration being in control of the FBI, you just went off on a tangent about race. Perhaps you admit he has a point?

Seriously, you're slipping -- do you need a vacation?

Bigjohn

Oct 31, 2008, 07:26 PM

Um, he brought in the RACE thing.... Just like all the race baiting... "expose somebody in the republican party for having anti-black supporters""

FordGT90Concept

Oct 31, 2008, 07:28 PM

I find your lack of faith in American servicemen... disturbing.

I'd like to think that they'd stick through it to the end of their term, even if they had been lied to at the beginning. True heroes, you know?
I am saying they are there because they want to be. I know two people personally that signed up expecting to get shipped off to Iraq. The US military is 100% volunteer--if they don't like it they can be discharged. Their service is not mandatory.

Unions are legalized mobs who, through the force of their "gang" then intimidate employers into paying people more than their worth. If your skill set = "would you like fries with that", and a happy meal sells for $3.99, how on earth do you think you deserve 10$ an hour?? Same for those nutjob unions who've ruined the best autombile industry in the world up in detroit. No money to invest in technology or improvement, because the unions take it all.
Hate to break it to you but Detroit ruined itself. They haven't been making products that people want for the past 10 years. They're finally figuring out that doesn't work and are on the brink of death because of it.

The unions have little to do with it.

FudFighter

Oct 31, 2008, 08:04 PM

no no no, the unions and dem's and all those pinko commies!!!! (watch the new indiana jones movie......rofl)

btw BJ hate to tell you this but most union workers i know arent the "would you like frys with that" crowd, they are very limmited in their skill set to be sure, but they are good at the job they have.

Unions arent there to bully employers as you say, they started to defend/protect employees from nobility who would try and use their possition/rank insted of paying bills, this is still what they really do, they protect employees from employeers who would otherwise screw them over.

how much you all wana bet that BJ and his crowd also feel we need to abolish the minimum wadge because that would fix all the problems........

the people who insist that prices would fall to match the ammounts employeers where willing to pay their slaves.

Bigjohn

Oct 31, 2008, 08:49 PM

mdm-adph

Oct 31, 2008, 09:07 PM

I grew up in chicago in the 70's and 80's and watched the steel workers union nearly put the plant my dad worked at out of business.

If your only skill is bolting tires onto new cars, then, you don't deserve 22$ per hour...

You know, I have no idea if you're lying or not, but even if true, your whole life sounds like one big anti-socialist talking points memo. Have you thought about making it into an email and passing it around?

Don't like paying $22 and hour? Then move your company overseas. Hell, I'm all for globalization -- if other countries' workers are willing to do the same work as an American for fractions of the cost, more power to them. But quit complaining about it.

Bigjohn

Oct 31, 2008, 09:40 PM

You know, I have no idea if you're lying or not, but even if true, your whole life sounds like one big anti-socialist talking points memo. Have you thought about making it into an email and passing it around?

Don't like paying $22 and hour? Then move your company overseas. Hell, I'm all for globalization -- if other countries' workers are willing to do the same work as an American for fractions of the cost, more power to them. But quit complaining about it.

Hence my comment that Unions are part of the cause of the death of detroit.
In Japan, a robot puts on the tires. In the US, the guy who sweeps the floor gets 20$/hr plus benefits...

pepsi71ocean

Oct 31, 2008, 11:47 PM

You know, I have no idea if you're lying or not, but even if true, your whole life sounds like one big anti-socialist talking points memo. Have you thought about making it into an email and passing it around?

Don't like paying $22 and hour? Then move your company overseas. Hell, I'm all for globalization -- if other countries' workers are willing to do the same work as an American for fractions of the cost, more power to them. But quit complaining about it.

This is the source of the problem. We have loop holes that were written int he 1960's that promoted globalism, the problem now is these very tax loop holes are destroying the Economy, and forcing Americans to subsidez the loos with increased taxes.

Also, one of my War Vet's sent this to me, and said to pass it around, and its about Obama, and McCain so i figured this would be a good place to put it.

WarEagleAU

Nov 1, 2008, 12:50 AM

Pepsi, thank you for this video posting.

Bigjohn

Nov 1, 2008, 12:59 AM

Yes, Pepsi. And please send my thanks for his sacrifice to that young man in the video, if you can.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 1, 2008, 01:03 AM

Pepsi, thank you for this video posting.

it was the right thing to do.

Yes, Pepsi. And please send my thanks for his sacrifice to that young man in the video, if you can.

I'll pass it back up the chain.

FordGT90Concept

Nov 1, 2008, 01:05 AM

pepsi71ocean

Nov 1, 2008, 01:17 AM

What pisses me off is this is nothing new. Democrats are just that damn ignorant. Instead, they try to argue "support the troops" but boo the war. FFS! The TROOPS are the the WAR. Without troops, you haven't got a war! :nutkick:

I know what you mean. I have friends over there, and ai have had one die already. and i totally turned me off to hear Hillary and Obama go back and fourth saying "I'll have the troops out in 45 days", and the other will say "I'll have them out in 30 days". All that does is show the ignorance that they have. I may not support how we got there, but damm i can't let my friend's death be in vain. he died there, and for what, so a Democratic president can say, "i'll have our troops out of there in 30 days". I supported Obama in the way beginning, before this 45,30 day crap. I do support some of Obama's values, but i can't stand, seeing my friend's death be in vein because some soccer mom's are crying because their son died in some foreign land so other people can have the right to freedom. And i must remind all, that we are a volunteer military, there is no draft, so he knew what could happen when he signed up. I have already shut one woman up at a bar once while i was having lunch, and everyone in the restaurant applauded when i was done, which was quite a surprise.

FudFighter

Nov 1, 2008, 01:52 AM

Hence my comment that Unions are part of the cause of the death of detroit.
In Japan, a robot puts on the tires. In the US, the guy who sweeps the floor gets 20$/hr plus benefits...

you ever been a janitor?

didnt think so, well if you ever did the job most janitors do you would understand why i call bullshit on your bitching about a janitor getting 20/hr.

I agree that some shouldnt, but for 4+years its what I did to support myself. i made 18-21/hr, and earned every penny, sure if all u do is mop u dont deserve it, but most janitors endup being part matnance, we also have to deal with being accused any time something goes missing from the office/company we work for because after all, blame the guy who you see as beeing below you in rank/social status is a time honoured tredition across the world.

we also spend alot of time fixing little things, for example a janitor at a public school dosnt just mop floors, he/she is a matnance person as well, small things that need fixed, get the janitor, somebody lock themselves in a locker(happened more then once at school events at the jr.high i worked at for a while) get the janitor.(yes this case the fool got HIMSELF locked in the locker both times trying to play a "jump out and scare you" gag........

I could go on and on, I am just glad I had a "union" backing me because more then a few times at buisnesses and schools somebody be it student,teacher or employee would jack something then try and make it look like the janitoral staff did it............

pepsi: thats typical bullshit video I see that only enflamed people who feel that if your against the war and call going to war in iraq a mistake you must hate/not respect the troops, its a load of hogshit, I respect the troops, I just feel that starting 2 wars at once and going into iraq under false pretences was a mistake.

Just as thinking bush is a MORON isnt treison/anti american.

What makes me laugh is the same people who will call you un-american and a traitor and on and on for not liking/respecing bush are the same ones who spent 8 years bitching about clinton because he was a tax and spend libral or getting a bj in office or anything else he did you didnt like(damn DMCA!!!!!)

I respect the office not the man, you can hate the person and still respect the office.

you can respect the troops, but not agree with the reasions/excuses/lies used to get the war started, oh and I have a buddy who just got out of the army after doing a total of 27-28months in iraq over his term of service, he would be willing to make a video to support obama simply because he after spending so much time there feels its time to get out, they enlarge DONT WANT US THERE.

the people 1 on 1 mostly are good people(as with most places in the world) be as a crowd/group they are anti american and you gotta watch it, you can endup dead due to mob mantality and public feeling that the us needs to get the fuck out and let them govern themselves.

heres my view, they need to pick themselves up and go, they have asked us to leave(the govt we setup) we should respect that and leave.

well go back to your knee jerk republican "if you dont support the war you dont respect the troops" bullshit I know you wont change your mind due to simple logic.......

FordGT90Concept

Nov 1, 2008, 01:54 AM

I have friends over there, and ai have had one die already.
I'm sorry for your loss.

I may not support how we got there, but damm i can't let my friend's death be in vain.
I see how we got there as a non-issue. What's done is done. The only thing we can do is try not to let it happen again. Why argue something that happened over five years ago that can't be changed? To do so is to argue for the sake of arguing.

...but i can't stand, seeing my friend's death be in vein because some soccer mom's are crying because their son died in some foreign land so other people can have the right to freedom.
I can almost guarantee that those "soccer mom's" never wanted their sons and daughters to join the military in the first place. They never accepted their sons and daughters decision to serve a greater cause and now are looking to blame anyone that will listen because of it. Yeah, they have a right to be angry but it shouldn't be at Americans no matter their position, it should be directed at the people that killed them (aka, the enemy). Just because the enemy managed a minor victory doesn't mean they won the war. The only way for them to win is for us to give into that pressure. It just baffles me how people actually want to give the enemy (the people with American blood on their hands) any reason to believe their gaining ground.

I have already shut one woman up at a bar once while i was having lunch, and everyone in the restaurant applauded when i was done, which was quite a surprise.
History tells us that the people that truly do "support the troops" are very quiet about it. They don't stand up and shout in rallies, they don't protest at all. They keep to themselves and only speak when someone else is out of line. The media never seeks out support for a war because there is no story there (at least they feel that way). They always find the people that are attempting to lie down in front of a motorcade and causing trouble. It's the little incidents like the one you encountered that keep this country strong. What the media covers only tears us apart.

...call going to war in iraq a mistake you must hate/not respect the troops, its a load of hogshit, I respect the troops, I just feel that starting 2 wars at once and going into iraq under false pretences was a mistake.
Tell me, how exactly is the way it started relevant today? Don't you think everyone and their dog now knows it was a mistake? Wars don't continue because of how they started, they continue because at least one side has long-term objectives in mind.

As stated above, to argue how the war started is to argue for the sake of arguing. It serves no practical purpose today.

FudFighter

Nov 1, 2008, 02:05 AM

its relivant to why people say the war in iraq was a mistake, the fact its a mistake dosnt change the fact we are there, never said it did.

about looing people and the pairnts not respecing the fact their kid mad the choice to join, alot of pairnets here arent upset about the kid joining but upset about how the recruiter tricked them into joining, assuring htem they wouldnt endup onthe front lines or in iraq, then they joined and where sent strait to iraq from basic.........

I feel army/military recruiters really should be made to answer for their lies, in some of these case that could be as much as being charged with a crime, they did get somebody to join on faulse pretendes and the person died because of it, if i did that i would be charged with a crime.

say i went and tricked some people into joining a group that did stupid dangrous shit under the guise of just being a hiking group or the like, then because of that somehow somebody died, i guarntee the cops here would figuar out a way to charge me with something for tricking people into something that got them killed/maimed.

FordGT90Concept

Nov 1, 2008, 02:07 AM

its relivant to why people say the war in iraq was a mistake
Who says it wasn't knowing what we know now? It is still irrelevant to our policy in regards to it today. To base decisions today on a decision over five years ago is fundamentally incorrect.

To prove that point, try playing a game of chess deciding your every move only knowing what you and your opponent did three plays ago. You're destined to lose if you play like that. We draw the same conclusion when applying the same concepts to Iraq. Our every move needs to be made based on the situation on the ground right now. What happend a week ago is irrelevant let alone years ago.

I feel army/military recruiters really should be made to answer for their lies, in some of these case that could be as much as being charged with a crime, they did get somebody to join on faulse pretendes and the person died because of it, if i did that i would be charged with a crime.
Recruiters have no way of knowing what will happen to the recruits. Those decisions aren't up to them. Anyone that serves has a chance of going there. That's the only known fact.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 1, 2008, 02:29 AM

pepsi: thats typical bullshit video I see that only enflamed people who feel that if your against the war and call going to war in iraq a mistake you must hate/not respect the troops, its a load of hogshit, I respect the troops, I just feel that starting 2 wars at once and going into iraq under false pretences was a mistake.

I don't support how we got into the War in Iraq. And in fact, i give Bush credit. I expected him to have the balls to start a draft back in 2001. We should have invaded with numbers, and said screw you to the UN, and to the rest of the world. If terrorist are in Syria, then invade Syria and take them out, and then go back over the Border. We should have gone into total war mode, and then just gone around destroying the terrorist in the Philippines, Afghanistan, and where ever else in the world.
We should have taken out Iran IMO, it may have taken longer to fall, but the Iranian people ages 14-30 support American ideals, and Economics, and are also the same group that hide this support, from the oppressive goverment as well.

I can almost guarantee that those "soccer mom's" never wanted their sons and daughters to join the military in the first place. They never accepted their sons and daughters decision to serve a greater cause and now are looking to blame anyone that will listen because of it. Yeah, they have a right to be angry but it shouldn't be at Americans no matter their position, it should be directed at the people that killed them (aka, the enemy). Just because the enemy managed a minor victory doesn't mean they won the war. The only way for them to win is for us to give into that pressure. It just baffles me how people actually want to give the enemy (the people with American blood on their hands) any reason to believe their gaining ground.
History tells us that the people that truly do "support the troops" are very quiet about it. They don't stand up and shout in rallies, they don't protest at all. They keep to themselves and only speak when someone else is out of line. The media never seeks out support for a war because there is no story there (at least they feel that way). They always find the people that are attempting to lie down in front of a motorcade and causing trouble. It's the little incidents like the one you encountered that keep this country strong. What the media covers only tears us apart.
Tell me, how exactly is the way it started relevant today?

Well, we should have gone in there with 1,000,000 combat troops. we should have never used Kuwait as a launch pad. We should have done Airborne, and beach invasions. And then with superior numbers over run the country and then put solders all along the border to help combat illegals from coming into he country.

I feel army/military recruiters really should be made to answer for their lies, in some of these case that could be as much as being charged with a crime, they did get somebody to join on faulse pretendes and the person died because of it, if i did that i would be charged with a crime.

Actually lol, i went to an Army and then a Marine Recruiter. The Marine Recruiter said that there is a really good chance that i will see action, and that if i wanted to i could guarantee trigger time. the Army Recruiter said it was more or less based on odds. And he defined odds as weather your unit would be called up to go or not.

Now i will always say this, marines are hard core, i come from a military family, and we have a history in the Marines. And the Marines go in to combat first, and the army guys just mopp up afterward. And besides in Vietnam it was the Marines who did all the ground work, while the draftee Army sat and protected your main fire bases in the south. In fact 3/4 Marines in Vietnam saw combat, while 2/10 Army draftees saw combat during their tour of duty. And combat is deemde as trigger time. Marines occupied "hot Fire-bases" where there was frequent fire-fights, like Chu Lai, Dong Ha, and Khe Sanh

WarEagleAU

Nov 1, 2008, 02:44 AM

I Call bullshit to your bullshit. Thats about all I need to say on that.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 1, 2008, 02:52 AM

I Call bullshit to your bullshit. Thats about all I need to say on that.

Me?

Bigjohn

Nov 1, 2008, 03:19 AM

Me?

No way.
Hes' calling bullshit on that liberal obama supporting name calling union supporting FudFighter

I worked a paintshop for Federal Signal in Illinois, during the summers, when I was in college. The union dudes were always telling me "Slow down, you're making us look bad", but I didn't. I worked through... this was in the 80's, and my output was 150-200% of the "union guys". For 70% of union wage... And I enjoyed it, worked it, and respected the pay I got as I used it for college.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 1, 2008, 03:41 AM

No way.
Hes' calling bullshit on that fart head liberal obama supporting name calling union supporting goon FudFighter (hey, I can toss names just as good as any liberal! Imagine that!)

I worked a paintshop for Federal Signal in Illinois, during the summers, when I was in college. The union dudes were always telling me "Slow down, you're making us look bad", but I didn't. I worked through... this was in the 80's, and my output was 150-200% of the "union guys". For 70% of union wage... And I enjoyed it, worked it, and respected the pay I got as I used it for college.

*phew, whipes sweat off brow*

I worked in a Union Environment before, and i know the feeling. And unfortunately the Boss told me that if it wasn't for the fact that they were unionized, i would have been promoted to management, instead of the other guy who was in the Union. I worked my ass off, and the managers knew i was bright, i made suggestions and helped improve there product movement and what not. and they made them, to bad i didn't get promoted to management, that would have made it for me.

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 03:43 AM

What pisses me off is this is nothing new. Democrats (and some Independants/Republicans) are just that damn ignorant. Instead, they try to argue "support the troops" but boo the war. FFS! The TROOPS are the the WAR. Without troops, you haven't got a war! :nutkick:

WTF?

Ok if you DON'T agree with the war that your country is in, and supporting the troops are two fucking different things.

So it makes me not American to use my freedom to say I do not agree with this war. And turn around to my brothers(Fellow fucking Americans following fucking ORDERS) and say I can't support you there, even tho OUR government that we SHARE that is FOR THE PEOPLE and we share the same fucking responsibility's in the war for our nation in total?

For the people is fucking everyone.

I can not say hey I don't like the way the big vote went, and then turn around and say fuck you to my fellow Americans(That are also there FOR THE PEOPLE).

You can support the troops and be against the war. The two are not one!!!!

I am an American, I have my right to voice my option. I have a right to stand out with my fellow Americans and change the way we look at things if we all agree. I do not have to push my fellow American away because the vote ended in a way I didn't agree with. We are going with the vote My Fellow Americans(we the people)are going to war end of story. If you are in the military at the time it's not DO YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR? Do You Agree With Your Commander. No you fucking go to war because not one person makes that call.

It's more Un-American to say that you can't support the troops if your against the war. Than it is to say I do not support the war, but I support(my fellow American)that went for me when the vote was made.

If you see it any other way you are not American and do not believe in your freedoms to stand with your fellow man.

We the People
Are One Nation
That stand together in someway from the start of our government that WE SHARE.

Namslas90

Nov 1, 2008, 03:46 AM

DaMulta for President!
:toast:

Bigjohn

Nov 1, 2008, 03:48 AM

Ha! That's rich. What a great analogy! your signature is such a hoot.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 1, 2008, 03:57 AM

WTF?

Ok if you DON'T agree with the war that your country is in, and supporting the troops are two fucking different things.

I think what he was saying was, without soldiers, there is no war. And the dems do say they support the war, however many democrats have vetoed bills that would allow for more funding and borrowing of money to help protect our troops, because it goes against the war. It is this political line drawing that i hate, and thus is why i boo just about any wars fought these days, they are all political, and play by stupid rules that didn't exist years ago. If we are going to go to war, do it right.

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 04:17 AM

I think what he was saying was, without soldiers, there is no war. And the dems do say they support the war, however many democrats have vetoed bills that would allow for more funding and borrowing of money to help protect our troops, because it goes against the war. It is this political line drawing that i hate, and thus is why i boo just about any wars fought these days, they are all political, and play by stupid rules that didn't exist years ago. If we are going to go to war, do it right.

Most people don't go really fucking deep into this. Whats really bad is that WE THE PEOPLE do not see everything!!! WE can but we don't/

We vote on who will be there to be the YES OR NO MAN

The bill that they are signing is not just the fucking title. There is other stuff in there. For us all to get along we have to agree to do things for the other person. It's like that in every bill. It keeps a balance in the system.

Do you see I to I with your friends 100% of the time? Do you think about this do you see I to I with him or her 100% of the time?

THE PERSON THAT WAS VOTED IN TO MAKE YOUR VOTE is supposed to support what his voters voted him in to pass and do. Why should he be forced to sign a Bill that he did not see I to I on with someone else if he feels it's the wrong thing to do? He was voted in because we the people trusted him or her.

It was not that they didn't want to fund the war, the war got funded DID IT NOT? Is it still not going on? They wanted compromise to sign a Bill that they didn't totally agree with, and the other party did not want to give them the compromise.

To think that those people voted in to make our most important decisions do not think about u and me when they pass something for Federal Government issues. That would be madness. If that person feels that he should not sign a bill, then he should not sign it. He was trusted to be there when he was voted in. Why can't he be trusted when he is there to make a choice on a tough call?

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 10:00 AM

This has nothing to do media. It has nothing to do with fear. It has nothing to do with television. It has nothing to do with newspapers. It has nothing to do with research. It has nothing to do with me being afraid. It has everything to do with being prepared for anything. We have a right to bare arms and the choice is in your hands. Should something happen, are you going to be the victim or are you going to own the situation?

Terrorist, murder, arsonist, robber, etc. very little separates them. They're all criminals and they all bleed.

Some day, all the Republicans and Independents are going to have to save the Democrat's asses. It doesn't matter when that day will come, it is inevitable. We are not immune to attack but we are smarter than they are. ;)

It's one thing to screen goods for illicit materials--it's something completely different to evaluate individuals for psychopathy. Need I remind you, all the perpetrators involved in 9/11 made it through multiple security measures include border/port security and airport security. We cannot look at an individual and accurately decide if they have criminal activity on their mind or not. The 2nd Amendment is about giving the people the opportunity to fight back and not be victimized. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if any and everybody was allowed to carry firearms on the aircraft. If someone wants to take over an aircraft, all they had to do in the past was find and incapacitate the air marshal: the only person previously permitted to carry a firearm.

LOL

Greedy Republicans why do you think that the WHOLE WORLD is in this mess right now? It's because YOU and the MEN on top, and say they create all the jobs. They support America and that's what it's about. We need more money to do that(BS)

Lets have no higher Government making sure that the rich are not taking advantage of the lesser. :roll:

When it's Americans in the lower class that make America what it is for those people on top. Instead today it's all about the man on top and not the lower man like it should be. In the older days if you had a job, and that job ended they would find another one for you now. Min wage was worth about 300% more than it is now. We have let the top go and go and go.

Now we shipping all are jobs off overseas, and just selling the products here. I'm sorry but isn't that what used to make us great? When did we become consumers instead inverters and producers of the some of the best products.

During the rain of Republicans over the past 8 years we made to much fucking money to handle it all. When you where yelling less regulation on the markets to keep it steady you just let it be. More money the more jobs, but just let it get out of control when we should of had government over site.

Just Greed

We have to force tax paying money back into the system because we could not handle all of our savings. That's going to take taxes to pay for the mess. To say that we don't owe the money that bad, and lower taxes is crazy.

Would it not be nice to have no national dept? We all owe 34,000 dollars A PERSON KID CHILD EVERY ONE 11 Trillion about to go to 12 Trillion as it stands NOW. BUT we are adding about 4 billion to it a day......(Only a few years ago total world savings was around 34 trillion dollars)

Why can we not pay off our shit, and make money like China does? Hell why the hell do we have to borrow money from a communist party.....and a ton of it. It's CRAZY.

You Republics have really really put us back. Our dollar is falling, and if the EU take control over the oil because of it......Then we are going to be Fucked

The people that can pay need to pay in and get us out of this mess need to. If not for us, for our kids, and there kids kids.

FudFighter

Nov 1, 2008, 10:35 AM

DaMulta, WoW, Just WoW......

I guarntee that you will get a responce that "prooves" the dem's are to blame, after all librals are a blite on the country according to them.......

this contry has become a nation of consumers, I have been saying that for years, it sucks but its fact.

Prepare your self for them to be told that the minimum wadge is to blame and that we need to abolish it.

the rethuglicans will blame anybody but themselves and their partys greed......after all, they are the only true americans, just ask them.

Cuzza

Nov 1, 2008, 10:48 AM

this contry has become a nation of consumers,

WHAT? "become"? consumerism has been rife for about 50 years.

EDIT: Ok, i admit it is worse than ever and getting worse by the day.....

FordGT90Concept

Nov 1, 2008, 11:26 AM

You can support the troops and be against the war. The two are not one!!!!
Try telling that to the men and women on the ground--of which, most WANT to be there. They'd kick you in the balls if they had a chance so I'll do it again, on their behalf. :nutkick:

It's more Un-American to say that you can't support the troops if your against the war. Than it is to say I do not support the war, but I support(my fellow American)that went for me when the vote was made.
There are three problems with that:
1) Nothing is "Un-American."
2) The troops are the war so you can't support one and not the other. To do so is through shear ignorance.
3) The House speaks on the behalf of the people, the people we elect. They voted in favor of intervening in Iraq. If you have a problem with that, then you need to find a Representative that stands for you beliefs.

Triprift

Nov 1, 2008, 11:38 AM

What so because you have men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that makes the war justified? I never critisised the men and women who served in vietnam but i shore as hell believed the war was wrong and unjust. I suppose youll call me radical hippy or something im sorry its 2008 we shoudnt be having war after war.

FordGT90Concept

Nov 1, 2008, 11:46 AM

When it's Americans in the lower class that make America what it is for those people on top. Instead today it's all about the man on top and not the lower man like it should be. In the older days if you had a job, and that job ended they would find another one for you now. Min wage was worth about 300% more than it is now. We have let the top go and go and go.
That's why we are a republic and not a democracy: Majority rules with rights of the minority.

Why can we not pay off our shit, and make money like China does? Hell why the hell do we have to borrow money from a communist party.....and a ton of it. It's CRAZY.
Quite simply, because the Consititution doesn't mandate that they balance the budget.

You Republics have really really put us back. Our dollar is falling, and if the EU take control over the oil because of it......Then we are going to be Fucked
Over half of US spending goes to Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. Both of those programs were authored by Democrats. Both of them combined pose the largest fiscal burden in human history. Both were founded over 30 years ago. Our debt is almost entirely Democrats to blame. I blame the Republicans for not trying harder to fix it being all "conservative" and what not.

What so because you have men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that makes the war justified? I never critisised the men and women who served in vietnam but i shore as hell believed the war was wrong and unjust. I suppose youll call me radical hippy or something im sorry its 2008 we shoudnt be having war after war.
It doesn't justify the beginning but the beginning, today, is irrelevant. Having people there justifies ending it in victory, not defeat.

We had a reason to go to Vietnam and a reason to finish it but, just like today, damn Democrats wanted it to end just because their stomachs are too weak for war. Vietnam, because of the public opinion, is the largest and deepest scar on the USA.

CyberDruid

Nov 1, 2008, 01:01 PM

A typical 2008 TPU-Member post. Good Job. You have managed to live up to the stereotype. Did you join just to argue about politics?

There was no reason to be in Vietnam. You should turn off Faux News for a minute and read a book. Just because you are too young to know what the hell you are talking about doesn't mean you have to remain in ignorance the rest of your life.

Bone up on the facts and stop regurgitating what you've been brainwashed.

laszlo

Nov 1, 2008, 01:24 PM

i just watch Zeitgeist addendum...

WhiteLotus

Nov 1, 2008, 01:30 PM

i just watch Zeitgeist addendum...

any good?

pepsi71ocean

Nov 1, 2008, 02:27 PM

Everything is from a economics POV, unless otherwise notarized.

Greedy Republicans why do you think that the WHOLE WORLD is in this mess right now? It's because YOU and the MEN on top, and say they create all the jobs. They support America and that's what it's about. We need more money to do that(BS)

Now we shipping all are jobs off overseas, and just selling the products here. I'm sorry but isn't that what used to make us great? When did we become consumers instead inverters and producers of the some of the best products.

I will say this from a economics POV. Jobs have been going over seas for about 50 years now. This is because of a tax-loop hole that was created to promote capitalism. See these tax codes were written up in the 1960's. These same tax codes also gave businesses incentives to go and move their operations over seas, these very same tax codes also force outside companies to build mfg plants here in the states. For example Toyota had to build an auto plant here in America because they were required to be law, because their company HQ was not in the US. However companies like Ford, Dodge, and GM didn't have to abide by these same tax rules. It promoted the movement of jobs to other capitalist countries to promote capitalism and fight communism.

Why can we not pay off our shit, and make money like China does? Hell why the hell do we have to borrow money from a communist party.....and a ton of it. It's CRAZY.

You Republics have really really put us back. Our dollar is falling, and if the EU take control over the oil because of it......Then we are going to be Fucked

We can make money, like china does, but we would have to force start a draft, this will enable us to lower our defense budget by using a conscript army(of which china is). Lower and fix the tax loop holes, then restructure out debt. Next we nationalize Education, and health care to be run by a government backed business. For example education would be run like a company, teachers would be reviewd and have to certified to teach, teachers salaries and jobs are depending on class room performance, there is no tenyrd get away either.
Once we have done that, we can begin to play back the debt we owe.

Typical non economic understanding. The value of the dollar is failing because of a multitude of reasons.
Reason 1:Weaker economics in the homeland
Reason 2:Lack of heavy industry(linked with1)
Reason 3:Bad government practices
Reason 4: lack of a stable economic guide(for example Oil, it used to be gold)

Reason 1. Over the last 100 years the American economy has moved over seas, as a result the trade deficit has arisen, this trade deflect is a bad thing in that it creates a weaker economy, because we import more than me manufacture. Back during the Imperial days, many countries solved this through Colonies and territories. This would allow the mother country to sell goods directly to its colonies which would create a huge trading surplus. Now what does this all mean, this symbolizes to people that more money is leaving the country then is being bough in, which in turn mean more money must be made to cover, and thus increases inflation.

Reason 2:Over the last about 50-70 years we have witnessed most of our heavy industry move over seas, unfortunately this is the very heavy industry that gave us such a huge trade surplus. As companies moved over seas, they made steel over seas, and then the steel was imported into the US, to make soup or what ever you want to call it.
Other steel like armament steel indirectly died because of a lack of military spending, for example Bethlehem Steel.

Reason3:Our government has failed and it is not a republican or a democrat to blame, it is however a range of issues between them. Pork Barrell spending, corruption, greed, all of these have helped to cause massive borrowing, which in turn shows a weeking country, and thus raises inflation. Typically this type of situation happens within a short amount of time before a country is either overthrown or falls, Don't believe what i am saying, just look to ROME, Pre-Nazi Germany, Pre-Soviet Russia, SOviet Russia, the list goes on.

Unfortunately we are showing alot of similairties to Pre-Nazi Germany, economics wise. We are reaching debt level that equal Pre-Nazi Germany (in modern dollar equivelents). However unlike Germany, we have not done mass printing which is what caused the hyperinflation. However, we are slowly have more issues selling goverment bonds, and thus can show more of a parallel line here. Now up until recently, there was a good demand for both US dollars, and Government Bonds. But with the dropping off of both, the Feds have been forced to monetize more and more of our debt, and monitize is more or less meaning to print money. Printing money caused inflation to go up, inflation right now is about 3-4% a year.

Unfortunately, the similarities between deficits and inflation is sacrosanct, meaning deficits lead to inflation and uncontrolled deficits lead to uncontrolled inflation. It is in times like these where people move to what are known as economic stabilizers, which is below.

Reason 4:For thousands of year Gold and Silver have been used to judge a governments worth and power. It does this by how much gold and silver was in that country. It was a stably sign that the economy and the government were sound, and thus a good economic choice. This is basically a gold standard. However in the 20th century, Oil became the next gold. Oil drove the economics of the world, not gold. Historically government kept billions of dollars in gold in vaults to be used in times of war, because gold was a stable economic indicator, Companies would take gold from government to produce war materials, because the company could use the gold to pay off its workers and debts. However there are cases where money was used, in the case of wars, it usually leads to inflation, because the government takes on enormous debts to fund the war, and to create inflation it either monetizes or issues bonds. If it monetizes the debt then there is more money around then there is use for, such cases are Roman emperors who repeatedly debasing their coinage, (Caused inflation in the later roman empire, Pre-split to west/east)the French revolutionary government printing a flood of currency,or the Continental Congress issuing money until it was literally not worth anything. Quite often a government in a financial crisis will find its easiest recourse is to issue more and more money until the money loses its value. The entire process is accompanied by a huge show of explanations such as propaganda and new regulations, increased internal spending, all of which will hide the true situation from the eyes of the public until they have lost all their savings, and they money is worthless.

Back to the reason. Because Oil drives the late 20, and 21 centuries, oil is the economic stabalizer. And as such oil prices went up to help keep the countries stabilized. However in a case of economic crisis people flee and take their money out of oil and pit it back into metals like gold and silver, because gold and silver will never loose value, there is always a country or a man willing to buy gold. This tumble in oil has caused oil prices to fall nearly in half, and as such the repercussions of this are wildly known and shown now. In fact against OPECS advice the G7 told OPEC to cut oil production to help raise prices and bring stability back to the World economy.

Other things.

A typical 2008 TPU-Member post. Good Job. You have managed to live up to the stereotype. Did you join just to argue about politics?

There was no reason to be in Vietnam. You should turn off Faux News for a minute and read a book. Just because you are too young to know what the hell you are talking about doesn't mean you have to remain in ignorance the rest of your life.

Bone up on the facts and stop regurgitating what you've been brainwashed.

I don't know what Fox news has to do with Vietnam, but we needed to be in Vietnam. We were winning the battles, and the war, but we pulled out at the pinnacle of the war. Ho Chi Mhin went on a 100% attack on Tet in 1968, he knew he would run out of men and supplies but his goal was not to win there, it was to destabilize America at home, which he did successfully. The Vietnamese people wanted us there, however we lost the war because of a lack of Support here at home, and the Politics of the war, and no over the fence missions like the Cambodian Incursion. We all know now that Ho Chi Mhin ran his supplies through Laos and Cambodia, where the US could not go, and there fore we could not destroy his ability to fight the war, and stabilize the country. It is this political crap that i hate, and its this very political crap that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. The terrorist are outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they come into the country to kill civilians and then they will flee back over the border where they are safe from Americans weaponry, how can we will a war when we can go over the wire.

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 02:54 PM

I spent a fair amount of time in the military, all of it with a security clearance. Not high enough to know anything really spectacular, but high enough to see there is an amazing amount of stuff going on I don't know the details of and a startling amount I don't know about at all.

The important thing about secret stuff is that, I think, there is a time and a place for the general populace to know things and that time is not always right now.

I also think it is true that, because of the need for secrecy, we require a strong leader. We need someone that can take the punches people throw at him because he KNOWS the secrets and, through a strong set of advisers, is taking a course of action that will result in a strong, safe and stable America.

There are certain things that leader has to be able to do. Just like any company he would have to be able to keep everyone on board and on task without being able to actually explain every aspect of the situation to everyone.

The whole business of running the country is not centered on war but also includes the economy, health care, education, entertainment and so on.

In the last several elections I don't believe we've had such a leader. We haven't had one since Regan. Now, many of you will scoff at the idea of Regan being a good president. He certainly wasn't the most knowledgeable but he was very good at getting people to do things AND at making the American public "feel" like the country was doing good things.

Not all of the plans he and his advisers came up with worked the way they intended but they did get implemented. The beauty of term limitations is that we are only stuck with those plans for so long.

So, personally, in deciding who to vote for in any election I look at the character of the person and not so much in their personal agenda.

At some point it no longer matters what we do as long as we're doing something. If the person we vote for doesn't have BOTH the balls AND the finesse to DO and motivate to do then it doesn't matter if the plan is good or bad because the plan will never happen.

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 03:11 PM

In this particular case I'm really intrigued by Sarah Palin. She has about as much business being the VP as I do but there is something interesting in that. Our legislative branch is very much a "good old boy" society that functions by mutual support and pulling and repaying favors.

At first look, she's new and so has no favors to pull. But she also carries a mighty big stick in the VP title and, because she lacks experience, doesn't know she's not supposed to just go blasting people when they screw up.

Basically she's a bull in a china shop. She's also the President's right hand man (person) and as such will be responsible for helping him gain the congressional votes required to pass his plans. I don't believe she will be intimidated by the existing infrastructure and we're about to find out about a lot of things about our congressional staff we were previously unaware of. Long story short, go along with the pres or your skeletons are coming out of the closet.

McCain himself is a pretty strong leader, has been involved in our government for quite a while and so knows just about everyone. I think this speaks to his ability to get things done very well.

On the other hand, we have Obama and Biden. Here it's just the opposite in terms of experience. I also don't think that he represents what the American people really want. Of course we want more affordable health care and we don't want to be at war with anyone. Shit in one hand and want in the other and you will quickly see which one fills up first.

The basic difference between a republican and a democrat is that republicans believe in less government and democrats believe in more. As we all know more <insert thing here> also costs more. I think when one actually thinks about what's going on here things can get a little obvious.

Both candidates want to lower taxes. Both candidates want to end the war. Both candidates want to improve the health care and retirement systems. Both candidates want to improve the economy. Well duh. Everyone wants these things.

The real question is HOW.

If you lower taxes you have less money coming in. So if you then increase spending on health care what happens? If you want to keep from going broke you have to reduce spending on other things to make up for the loss of funds. I fail to see how that id different from my own check book aside from the number of zeros involved.

The democrats have always been strong proponents of reducing spending on the military. We could use the money we recoup for something like education. While I certainly believe we need fewer stupid people running about mucking things up, I don't think we need to remove all the locks from our homes to accomplish that. A guard dog with no teeth and three legs is only an effective deterrent until the bad guys test the bite behind the bark.

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 03:25 PM

So to sum everything up, I think it takes a leader that can re-establish some functional plans, get rid of some things that don't work and keep everyone happy while he's doing so.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When deciding you to vote for I recommend we all think more about who can actually get the job done to the satisfaction of the above standard more so than who seems like a nicer guy. It's not about ending war and bringing world peace and I hope it never will be. It's not our job or place to tell the world how to live. If our ability to lead our lives in peace and cohabitation with the rest of the world is threatened by a tyrant we have little choice other than to take the fight to them. But that is the exception and not the rule.

We need a person to LEAD us through the decisions we do not understand using facts we are unaware of. We need someone who will help us as citizens to get back on our feet when we fall on our knees but not coddle us forever with welfare loop holes and the promotion of laziness.

We need a person who will not back down from a fight because it won't be popular to pop the bully in the eye when he needs it. We need a person who will effect our safety and happiness through the rule of law.

In short we need a President.

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 03:57 PM

Try telling that to the men and women on the ground--of which, most WANT to be there. They'd kick you in the balls if they had a chance so I'll do it again, on their behalf. :nutkick:

There are three problems with that:
1) Nothing is "Un-American."
2) The troops are the war so you can't support one and not the other. To do so is through shear ignorance.
3) The House speaks on the behalf of the people, the people we elect. They voted in favor of intervening in Iraq. If you have a problem with that, then you need to find a Representative that stands for you beliefs.
I guess you did not read my post, and do not understand what America is.

OUR government that we SHARE that is FOR THE PEOPLE and we share the same fucking responsibility's in the war for our nation in total

The House speaks on the behalf of the people
No shit that we voted in......which made it OUR CHOICE..........WE THE PEOPLE
SHARE WHAT THE DECIDE TO DO ON OUR BEHALF. Because every American shares ownership in our Country.

Everyone is EQUAL here in America. That's the way it is supposed to be. That's why we get to VOTE!!!!! Everyone shares that.

People that are at war get to vote
me and you at home get to vote
I could run for any place in office in our government
You cold run for any place in office in our government.

One person is not better than the other person in our country. It is one reason we have the one thing called the BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!

I can not say hey I don't like the way the big vote went, and then turn around and say fuck you to my fellow Americans(That are also there FOR THE PEOPLE).
Who is there for the people? You and Me that's who. That's what OUR MILITARY IS. You are not forced to take that roll.DO I have to hate them??????NO!!!!, because they signed on to do what it takes. When our government decides to go to war, they do what has to be done.

In my eyes, my way of thinking, I do not have to hate my fellow Americans(people in the military) that are there for us when the bad comes to worse. I can if I want to, but I feel that it is the wrong thing to do.

I do not have to push my fellow American away because the vote ended in a way I didn't agree with.
I have the right to voice my option and not hate another American for voicing his. That's what makes OUR country the best. We can say what we want and not effect the other person.
It's more Un-American

I said MORE and did not say it's Un American

2) The troops are the war so you can't support one and not the other. To do so is through shear ignorance.

I do not live in Fucking China!!!!!
I have the right to say NO I DO NOT LIKE THAT!!!
I have the right to go along with my country if we do something I DO NOT LIKE!!!
EVERYONE that is an AMERICAN HAS THAT RIGHT!
We The People have the RIGHT, THE FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT WE WANT!
We are not forced to believe in anything. If it was dictated to us then we would not have freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try telling that to the men and women on the ground--of which, most WANT to be there. They'd kick you in the balls if they had a chance so I'll do it again, on their behalf. :nutkick:

.

My family FOUGHT HERE for our Freedoms!!!! Gave BLOOD so that I can have the right to say whatever I want and for your to say what ever you want.
It has been written in blood. They would kick you in the balls for saying that WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT TO SAY AND BELIEVE IN WHAT WE WANT!

WarEagleAU

Nov 1, 2008, 03:58 PM

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That still rings true to this day! Well said Palit_guy.

Taking this one step further, where does most of our national debt lie? Im really curious about this as well as the trade deficit. I can tell you one thing, we have a "forgiveness" problem. Ill elaborate more on that later after a few of you answer my questions.

BTW, Im going to reach across the isle here and aside from DaMulta droppping F-Bombs:roll: (Still da Man DaMulta) I think Ive learned a whole lot about the political process that I didnt know and more information that I had forgotten. So thank you all for that.

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 04:07 PM

If me dropping the F bomb helps you wake up and see the truth then I'm going to say it.

WarEagleAU

Nov 1, 2008, 04:10 PM

I didnt say wake up now, I think I have a fair grasp on my own ideals and beliefs. However, it is nice to see passion in folks about this.

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 04:17 PM

@Damulta

I'll have to disagree with you as a point of semantics. We are not all equal in the US and everyone would do well to bear this in mind.

"Are" equal means present tense, now. That just isn't the case and never has been. All men are CREATED equal. What people do beyond that determines whether or not and to what degree they maintain their equality.

This speaks to the very nature of our humanity and explains many many things when it comes to inequality.

Racism is always a hot topic and if anyone thinks it's anywhere but right in front of us they aren't paying attention. Any time a group gets special consideration that is denied to any other group you have at least some form of racism.

Placing a requirement on government and businesses to hire a certain percentage of minorities is most certainly a form of discrimination. Because the requirement is being applied to race it constitutes racism. I'm a firm believer that racism is bad and therefore racial quotas are bad.

I understand the intent is good but I disagree with the methodology in principle.

Think of it this way. You wouldn't eat a shit sandwich would you? Of course not. In this analogy racism would be the shit sandwich. But what if we took a perfectly good bologna sandwich and just hid a little bit of poo under the mayonnaise? Would that be ok to eat?

At the end of the day denying a white person a job because a non-white guy was needed to hit a quota is discriminatory. It's no more ok to discriminate against a white person than a non-white person.

The same goes for "welfare" people. We've all seen it. The family that lives in a trailer, drives a Cadillac and gets a ton of government assistance. While we may think those people have the same legal rights as everyone else most people do not consider them to be equal in a more general or across the board sense.

Why is that?

Typically that emotion comes from those of us that work very hard for a living and, from the outside looking in, think they aren't pulling their fair share. That means we think "they" and "us" aren't equal. And that is most certainly the case because they aren't working and we are.

Whether or not that is a bad thing is for the reader to decide. I'm ONLY stating the fact that while we as human beings are created equal, we don't stay that way for long and that if you really want to understand yourself, careful consideration of who you consider unequal to yourself and why is an important thing to do.

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 04:22 PM

@Damulta

The F-bomb is a great tool to get people attention and liven things up. But when you use it as much as you do it just becomes another adverb and loses its effect.

Not using very often enhances your ability to "wake people up" with it. Creating a situation that brings even more attention to its use adds to the effect even more.

For example, since I work at Palit everyone typically expects me to play nice and be very professional which equates to being calm and not swearing. I typically oblige that misconception.

The impact of that shows here when I say the following:

Damulta- shut the fuck up and get a fucking dictionary.

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 04:32 PM

LOL very true

Most of the time I do not drop the F bomb here even when I can. I do drop it when I feel that it is needed.

If you look at my track record at techpowerup most of the time I will #%@%@#% the words.

There is a time and a place for when it is needed to be said IMO.

CyberDruid

Nov 1, 2008, 05:13 PM

I have to take issue with anyone saying that we needed to be in Vietnam or that the Vietnamese wanted us there. That's just plain ordinary Horse Shit. It's not even Bull shit. Read a GODDAMN BOOK once in a while.

Iraq is our generation's Vietnam.

It's that simple.

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 05:16 PM

That's why we are a republic and not a democracy: Majority rules with rights of the minority.

And I say that the rights of the Majority are being controlled by who is on top(The minority with all the money and control).

Quite simply, because the Consititution doesn't mandate that they balance the budget.

Tell me this, if everyone comes to collect what we owe, what is going to happen?

Over half of US spending goes to Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. Both of those programs were authored by Democrats. Both of them combined pose the largest fiscal burden in human history. Both were founded over 30 years ago. Our debt is almost entirely Democrats to blame. I blame the Republicans for not trying harder to fix it being all "conservative" and what not.

Both are good programs. We should stop taking money OUT OF THEM. It was Ronald Regan that made employers double what you pay in to fix the problem. We may need to do that again.

And your party want to give those programs to us individuals the right to F it up on our own....The program was put in place to protect us from ourselves. If we have it back a lot of people are going to end up with noting when it comes time for them to use them.

It doesn't justify the beginning but the beginning, today, is irrelevant. Having people there justifies ending it in victory, not defeat.

We had a reason to go to Vietnam and a reason to finish it but, just like today, damn Democrats wanted it to end just because their stomachs are too weak for war. Vietnam, because of the public opinion, is the largest and deepest scar on the USA.

It could also mean that we need to mind our own damn business when needed as well. Even Bush has said that BEFORE he was President and our Commander and Chief.

I do believe we need to be in Afghanistan, and if we are fighting a war we should be more like Israel and what they did over two people. What do we do if two of our people are taken today.........yep that's it. What party has had the control to take action like that right now, and has for the last 8 years?

And to think that Democrats don't start any wars lol. Look at what Clinton did......there is a time and a place, and a right war to be fighting. We all have different views on this, and that's what makes us great is because we get to pick on what view we have.

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 05:28 PM

http://files.meetup.com/523165/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

Who is the conservatives again?

laszlo

Nov 1, 2008, 05:29 PM

any good?

yes ;you can watch on youtube also;even obama and mccain are in

btarunr

Nov 1, 2008, 05:36 PM

The tempers are high in this thread, people are resorting to name-calling. Pray why? What good is it going to do to you calling someone something? Isn't it better you make you point without it?
Please reduce swearing, I understand you're taking this debate seriously, and you should be (its your country, you pwn it), but please let's not get too emotional/passionate about things
If there's a PUP (potentially useless post), please take the liberty to report it. Due to the sheer number of posts (per day) in this thread, you can make things easy for everyone by keeping things civil, or report anything that isn't, it makes my job a little easier to babysit this thread (though I expected you all wouldn't need someone to babysit it (the way posts earlier down the thread were (didn't require babysitting))).
Do not embed flash-videos, provide links to it

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 05:41 PM

I do must admit I require babysitter from time to time:)

If u lived here btarunr. You would see that these subjects are being written about here, are talked about the same way person to person to here. It's not that we are fighting. It's just how we talk about it:)

I'll take note on what you have said tho. You have the rights here, not me:)

CyberDruid

Nov 1, 2008, 05:44 PM

http://files.meetup.com/523165/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

Who is the conservatives again?

Glad you posted that chart. It should make it clear as day what's been going on and what needs to change.

btarunr

Nov 1, 2008, 05:47 PM

I do must admit I require babysitter from time to time

Oh yes you we do :pimp:

If u lived here btarunr. You would see that these subjects are being written about here, are talked about the same way person to person to here. It's not that we are fighting. It's just how we talk about it

...which is why I'm being my flexible best, I agree this is a debate that requires your opinion, and for this reason, this thread has survived lock time and again. We're convinced this thread doesn't deserve a lock, and hence we're trying hard to make sure it stays that way (unlocked) please help us accomplish that. Not all people in this thread are taking things the way they should be taken.

laszlo

Nov 1, 2008, 05:59 PM

calm down people you don't have any power even if you vote...

a dead terrorist..:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouDRDzqTu0M

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 06:10 PM

@Damulta

The same goes for "welfare" people. We've all seen it. The family that lives in a trailer, drives a Cadillac and gets a ton of government assistance. While we may think those people have the same legal rights as everyone else most people do not consider them to be equal in a more general or across the board sense.
.

What about that guy that is down on his luck and needs some help to get back on his feet, and make us more tax money?

Why do we need to let our own people suffer, and then tell the rest of the world that's not the right thing to do?

Bigjohn

Nov 1, 2008, 06:12 PM

http://files.meetup.com/523165/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

Who is the conservatives again?

Hmm.
Check who was in CONGRESS during those years. Presidents can propose policy and veto bills, but CONGRESS spends the money. You'll find that in your copy of the constitution.
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
Democrats controlled the huge increases in spending on almost every line of that chart...

CyberDruid

Nov 1, 2008, 06:36 PM

Hmm.
Check who was in CONGRESS during those years. Presidents can propose policy and veto bills, but CONGRESS spends the money. You'll find that in your copy of the constitution.
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
Democrats controlled the huge increases in spending on almost every line of that chart...

That has nothing to do with the Trillions in debt. Almost all the war spending has been outside the loop of congressional approval in the form of "Emergency Allotments". And that's a fact. I will fault Congress for not having ther balls to stand up to Bush and his advisors.

Congress did not put us in this hole: you can thank GW Bush for that one. In fact Bush and the Fed have bullied Congress into spending yet another Trillion right as he is getting out of office. You can see how well the bail out is working.

GWB has singlehandedly bancrupted out nation. It's not a Democratic Congress spending the money...it's Bush and his stupid war in Iraq that he lied to us about to get us behind. The agenda there is about getting all of the Bush cronies rich. He's accomplished his mission: taking care of all the guys that got him into office.

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 06:55 PM

Great post BigJohn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's teh data for those that don't check your link. From 1955-1995 there were more Dems than Reps in Congress. From 1995-2007 there were more Reps than Dems. The Dems currently control congress.

interested people should also take a minute to understand what the national debt is. you can read more about it here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm

The short version is:
You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.

In plain terms:
The national debt is similar to like getting a cash advance on your check. The fed issues a treasury bill or savings bond etc., you buy it and after a certain period of time you get your money back plus a little bit.

That ultimately leaves a little less in the budget than otherwise would have been there BUT, it provides the cash the government needs to have in its account to pay whatever it is that needs paid. it's supposed to just be a way to manage cash flow in the same way any business would do so.

If everyone cashed in their bonds and bills at the same time, well, that would be bad. Basically all the government employees and other payees of federal funds would have to wait until everyone paid their taxes for the government had enough money in their checking account.

In more recent years this borrowing has become common place as a stop-gap measure to get agencies through until a budget can be agreed upon and passed or to temporarily cover a problem where it spent more money than it actually had.

As everyone who has ever done a "payday" loan knows, it's not really a sustainable business model. Eventually you have to get caught up.

newconroer

Nov 1, 2008, 07:04 PM

http://files.meetup.com/523165/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

Who is the conservatives again?

This is a fruitless chart.

A better one, would be something that shows just what the presidents allowed to contribute to the national debt, and maybe more importantly, who put those programs in place originally.

Please do not confuse real conservatives a.k.a. Constitutionalists, with post 1950s neo-cons.

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 07:06 PM

That has nothing to do with the Trillions in debt. Almost all the war spending has been outside the loop of congressional approval in the form of "Emergency Allotments". And that's a fact. I will fault Congress for not having ther balls to stand up to Bush and his advisors.

Congress did not put us in this hole: you can thank GW Bush for that one. In fact Bush and the Fed have bullied Congress into spending yet another Trillion right as he is getting out of office. You can see how well the bail out is working.

GWB has singlehandedly bancrupted out nation. It's not a Democratic Congress spending the money...it's Bush and his stupid war in Iraq that he lied to us about to get us behind. The agenda there is about getting all of the Bush cronies rich. He's accomplished his mission: taking care of all the guys that got him into office.

This isn't really true. The nation isn't bankrupt.

Can you site your source that shows how much money, even in rough figures, has been spent outside the jurisdiction or approval of congress?

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 07:08 PM

This is a fruitless chart.

A better one, would be something that shows just what the presidents allowed to contribute to the national debt, and maybe more importantly, who put those programs in place originally.

Please do not confuse real conservatives a.k.a. Constitutionalists, with post 1950s neo-cons.

I hear you on that one! It's all relative but I would agree that the level of conservatism in republicans has been dwindling for years.

newconroer

Nov 1, 2008, 07:12 PM

The really shit thing about Bush Jr's position after 9/11, is that "WMD" or not, he had to answer back; which meant going over Congress, and declaring war without their approval (or at least proper approval).

I don't know what other option he had, to save Americans from rioting.

Having said that, he should have close the book several years ago, or at least when Saddam was caught and convicted. That could have been the 'victory,' and people were calmed down by then.

What gets me about these arguements, is not that they always go off on tangents.. I expect that; and not that they draw upon the past, I expect that too. What strikes me as ludicrous, is how despite all of the good points made, NOTHING will change, because each side is W R O N G.

America used to = Primarily Protestant rooted freedom fighters, erecting the most promising nation ever, whilst allowing people who didn't agree entirely with their views, to still share the fruits of their labor and detachment from oppression as long as they didn't try to entirely undermine the common goal that all were trying to achieve.

America now = Whiny, snivelling, ungrateful, ass-whiped, loud-mouth, peckerheads, of all walks of life, race, creed and religion, who have no respect for the Constitution, or the purpose of America, or the sacrifices made, whilst carrying on this masquerade about 'peace' and 'tolerance' and 'equality,' when they're really just fueling their own hidden agenda, that revolves solely around 'me! me! me!,' and they are willing to completely undermine the sole purpose of what the forefathers were trying to accomplish.

How Americans can still allow themselves to be so mis-represented is appaulling, and what's more appaulling, is that their shooting star is fizzling out, while they argue about gun control, and gay marriage and abortion.
Are you ******* kidding me???????? GAY MARRIAGE? When shit hits the fan from a plummeted economy, a thinned out military and a foreign attack on American soil, WHO GIVES A FLYING FU** if gay people can marry, or if a woman can have an abortion...there won't be any churches or any clinics left, and no people to run them.

Tatty_One

Nov 1, 2008, 08:16 PM

Ford was making the argument that a court marshal was probably preferable to continuing to serve in the hellhole that is Iraq. Though I agree with his sentiment, I differ with his methods.

Sorry, I know I am 5 pages behing now, leave the forums for 12 hours and I have 5 pages of reading to catch up on :shadedshu...........I am not so sure about a Courts martial in so much as, you, as well as the UK, still have a death sentance for certain military crimes, not sure if "desertion in the face of the enemy" is one of them.

Ohhhh and before anyone from the UK gets on my case.....yes we do still actually have the death sentance in the UK (military law) for 4 particular offenses.

Tatty_One

Nov 1, 2008, 08:26 PM

Rammsteiner

Nov 1, 2008, 08:37 PM

?????? Where did you get that from........Most of the US Army I served with in both Iraq (2003 and 2004), and Afghanistan (2002) did NOT want to be there (as most Brits dont either). What they say more publically and what they say personally often are 2 very different things.
What's new. It's a bunch of rednecks who want to be there to kick ass against the evil terrorists, which they can hardpy spell, let alone define, and that's about it.

But well, I hope those war ends quick. This will on most fronts increase things positively globally, but also for USA economically and globally, but maybe it's already too late to prevent a 2nd 9/11 from those actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan + surrounding countries. I hope it's not too late, but well, only time will tell.

SK-1

Nov 1, 2008, 08:48 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx

The latest latest poll. Obama up a bit.

WarEagleAU

Nov 1, 2008, 08:54 PM

I assume he will be up a bit up until the election. Who knows what will happen on Tuesday, but I surmise he will win. I am not going to vote for him however :D

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 09:00 PM

http://img.techpowerup.org/081101/thank you.jpg

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 09:03 PM

http://img.techpowerup.org/081101/thank you.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

Go Damulta!

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 09:06 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx

The latest latest poll. Obama up a bit.

Wow. They asked a whole 2,847 people.

US population = 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

.00009% of the people were surveyed. really? 9 one hundred thousandths of the population?

If the US population was one meter long that would be .09% of a millimeter or 90 micrometers. 90 micrometers is almost as big as Damulta's penis and I don't want anything that small representing my opinion.

SK-1

Nov 1, 2008, 09:22 PM

Wow. They asked a whole 2,847 people.

US population = 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

.00009% of the people were surveyed. really? 9 one hundred thousandths of the population?

If the US population was one meter long that would be .09% of a millimeter or 90 micrometers. 90 micrometers is almost as big as Damulta's penis and I don't want anything that small representing my opinion.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Ok,tally up these, do your math again, and see if your new total is longer than his penis.

ShadowFold

Nov 1, 2008, 09:30 PM

Why so serious guys? This will all be over in a few days, lets just watch and see what happens!

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 09:33 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Ok,tally up these, do your math again, and see if your new total is longer than his penis.

Polls are awful and I don't think they should be used for or against anything. you have no idea who voted or where they were from or what was going on or who paid to have the poll taken and any other number of variables.

But even at that, the number of people sampled just isn't enough to draw a conclusion.

The largest group polled I saw from that chart was 4,835 registered voters and it showed McCain in the lead by +3.

The other largest number polled was 3,000 (repeatedly) and it was polling likely voters. Really? Likely voters? How can this be a set we have any interest in? Likely voters should be voting for likely candidates.

Polls = bad

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 09:33 PM

Why so serious guys? This will all be over in a few days, lets just watch and see what happens!

The debate and exposure to other thoughts and points of view I find fascinating. Sometimes I even learn stuff.

Besides, it's the only way I can get my thanks rating up!

ckoons1

Nov 1, 2008, 10:05 PM

Find the direction where the masses are going and go the opposite your chances are better.
Quote by Anthony Robbins

WarEagleAU

Nov 1, 2008, 10:06 PM

Haha, another way is to give out free Palit 4870 Cards :D

CyberDruid

Nov 1, 2008, 10:07 PM

Or at least some XXL T-shirts. The Palit Shirts I got from NewEgg were only L

WarEagleAU

Nov 1, 2008, 10:10 PM

Yeah 2X and 3X would work. Thanks CD!

Palit_Guy

Nov 1, 2008, 10:17 PM

I have some XL and 3XL. Send me some PMs with shipping.

sorry, no cards this time.

Bigjohn

Nov 1, 2008, 10:43 PM

Excuse, but what's a Palit card?

ShadowFold

Nov 1, 2008, 10:51 PM

Excuse, but what's a Palit card?

Video card brand

CyberDruid

Nov 1, 2008, 10:54 PM

lol

DaMulta

Nov 1, 2008, 10:54 PM

Excuse, but what's a Palit card?

You just killed a kitten:shadedshu

DaedalusHelios

Nov 2, 2008, 01:37 AM

Palit makes their own cards. That way you know QC is high. ;)

WarEagleAU

Nov 2, 2008, 01:44 AM

Precisely Dae. Now if our government could get a high QC plan :D

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 01:52 AM

Palit_Guy for President

WarEagleAU

Nov 2, 2008, 01:58 AM

Ill second that. Maybe DaMulta can be Vice President :D

ShadowFold

Nov 2, 2008, 01:58 AM

Palit_Guy for President

of Palit?

WarEagleAU

Nov 2, 2008, 01:03 AM

Of The World! :roll: Muhahaha!

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 01:04 AM

Ya, that's the ticket.

Palit_guy for President of the World.

WarEagleAU

Nov 2, 2008, 01:05 AM

It worked for a little while in the movie V for Vendetta :D

CyberDruid

Nov 2, 2008, 01:36 AM

You just killed a kitten:shadedshu

:eek: :cry:

Bigjohn

Nov 2, 2008, 01:41 AM

Ahh, well, I'm a dog guy. Voting McCain (well, already did...), but I'll surely look into these "palit" cards -though my Mobo is nvidia 780i so I need Nvidia SLI cards.

Oh nice.
I wish someone would make these cards with a built on water block.....

btarunr

Nov 2, 2008, 02:02 AM

Ill second that. Maybe DaMulta can be Vice President :D

Nothing will change. You'll still have a president that favours the companies that gave him his chair. Palit would be selling everything from condoms to aircraft by the end of his term. :P

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 02:27 AM

My first official act would, of course, be to provide everyone at TPU with a new video card.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 02:29 AM

Nothing will change. You'll still have a president that favours the companies that gave him his chair. Palit would be selling everything from condoms to aircraft by the end of his term. :P

You do not know PALiT Guy at all then. He is one of my best friends that I have made over the years. The things that he does and says has changed my life for the better.

The way he says them makes you think, and if you are not willing to do so then you can not learn what he has to say.

He is one of the coolest, happy, loving(I say so"He cares without thinking"), people that I know. He lives life the way life should be lived and to say other wise about him would be a lie.

I know for a fact if he was in office, he would do great things, and always have a new plan in place to move us forward. If his plan failed, he would not worry about what happened. He would make a new one and learn from what he had done wrong.

He would not step back from us, he would share and explain what needs to be done. Hard or not Americans would have the truth. The way it should be. Sometimes a man needs to be hit in the gut, before he knows what to do. He could do this for us!

I do not share all of his views, but then again I never share anyone's views 100%.

btarunr

Nov 2, 2008, 02:30 AM

If you can make sure computer hardware becomes a little more affordable, there's more competition encouraged, if companies like VIA have a fair ground to compete, etc...before which, you make sure computer hardware manufacturing gets back to Sunnyvale (American jobs) from Shanghai, I'll migrate to the US just to vote for you.

This sounds a little socialist, but I'm not intending it to sound like that. Back in the 70s, a lot of your jobs staied in the US. Kids had every reason to educate themselves to get those jobs. Even kids not wanting education had the room to take some technical training, so they could work in a factory. Haven't you just outsourced almost everything to Asia, and retained just the cream of the jobs back home? Is it very encouraging for a kid to grow up in a system where there's lesser room with the career?

@D: take it a joke, c'mon I was just messing

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 02:56 AM

Going back in the thread I think this is the most important issue that we face when we vote. The vote is so close that I felt like pointing out the most important post that I feel is the most important thing to think about before voting.

LOL

Greedy Republicans why do you think that the WHOLE WORLD is in this mess right now? It's because YOU and the MEN on top, and say they create all the jobs. They support America and that's what it's about. We need more money to do that(BS)

Lets have no higher Government making sure that the rich are not taking advantage of the lesser. :roll:

When it's Americans in the lower class that make America what it is for those people on top. Instead today it's all about the man on top and not the lower man like it should be. In the older days if you had a job, and that job ended they would find another one for you now. Min wage was worth about 300% more than it is now. We have let the top go and go and go.

Now we shipping all are jobs off overseas, and just selling the products here. I'm sorry but isn't that what used to make us great? When did we become consumers instead inverters and producers of the some of the best products.

During the rain of Republicans over the past 8 years we made to much fucking money to handle it all. When you where yelling less regulation on the markets to keep it steady you just let it be. More money the more jobs, but just let it get out of control when we should of had government over site.

Just Greed

We have to force tax paying money back into the system because we could not handle all of our savings. That's going to take taxes to pay for the mess. To say that we don't owe the money that bad, and lower taxes is crazy.

Would it not be nice to have no national dept? We all owe 34,000 dollars A PERSON KID CHILD EVERY ONE 11 Trillion about to go to 12 Trillion as it stands NOW. BUT we are adding about 4 billion to it a day......(Only a few years ago total world savings was around 34 trillion dollars)

Why can we not pay off our shit, and make money like China does? Hell why the hell do we have to borrow money from a communist party.....and a ton of it. It's CRAZY.

You Republics have really really put us back. Our dollar is falling, and if the EU take control over the oil because of it......Then we are going to be Fucked

The people that can pay need to pay in and get us out of this mess need to. If not for us, for our kids, and there kids kids.

Great post BigJohn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's teh data for those that don't check your link. From 1955-1995 there were more Dems than Reps in Congress. From 1995-2007 there were more Reps than Dems. The Dems currently control congress.

interested people should also take a minute to understand what the national debt is. you can read more about it here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm

The short version is:
You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.

In plain terms:
The national debt is similar to like getting a cash advance on your check. The fed issues a treasury bill or savings bond etc., you buy it and after a certain period of time you get your money back plus a little bit.

That ultimately leaves a little less in the budget than otherwise would have been there BUT, it provides the cash the government needs to have in its account to pay whatever it is that needs paid. it's supposed to just be a way to manage cash flow in the same way any business would do so.

If everyone cashed in their bonds and bills at the same time, well, that would be bad. Basically all the government employees and other payees of federal funds would have to wait until everyone paid their taxes for the government had enough money in their checking account.

In more recent years this borrowing has become common place as a stop-gap measure to get agencies through until a budget can be agreed upon and passed or to temporarily cover a problem where it spent more money than it actually had.

As everyone who has ever done a "payday" loan knows, it's not really a sustainable business model. Eventually you have to get caught up.

If everyone cashed in their bonds and bills at the same time, well, that would be bad.

This is what I believe is going on right now 99% sure of it. Everyone cashing out at one time, and moving there money to the other side. It off balanced the system, and bam we need money to put back in what was moved to keep moving. With out it, there would be no money for banks to loan, from anything to loaning money to pay their employees, to paying there bills, because most companies are always paying into a steady loan, because they do not have the capital to do it by themselves.

The bail out is bullshit... it really is. All of this "loss of value" is on paper... because of government regulations.

from the year 2000 - 2004(around those years)
we went from total world savings 34 trillion to something like 74 trillion dollars. That's more money than anyone speeds total in the world. That's everything down to a stick of bubble gum.

Now they have to put this money into something. So they start investing into housing and making money on the equity. Banks were just selling these loans out the door left and right. In fact they didn't have enough of them. So somehow they starting mixing lower groups into higher group classes and selling them.

like, kinda setup like this
Class C under 50% pay back rate

Class B over 50% pay back rate

Class A 100% pay back rate......

So all of these loans they they started buying they thought were group A, had B, and C mixed in with them. Then the failures started people stopped paying on their loans, so the equity starts to go down on the loans. Which to me is "loss of value" because they were not group A investments.

http://img.techpowerup.org/081101/thank%20you.jpg

Right or wrong this is one of the most important things that I have learned over the year about what More higher government can do, to help us all. I know it sucks to say that you need a babysitter, but come on. Most of us work for someone, most of us do not work for ourselves. For that fact alone most people can not control their actions, when those actions that needed to be controlled are not being controlled.....Then you have madness. Bigger Government(Federal) keeps us from doing stupid things that can mess up our lifes, and because we are involved with the entire world I feel that we need that control over us even more.

I do believe in the other things that Federal Government can do for us(we all know those things). That one above is one that I have really learned this year, in how money needs to be made, a smart way.We can bring down the world with us just because who we are.

I see it that way!!!:toast:

Bigjohn

Nov 2, 2008, 03:13 AM

Government regulation always is constructed to give one group preference over another - in the guise of "protecting" someone, or giving someone a "leg up"...

But all it really does is give someone (Senator DODD? Senator FRANK??) a way to milk the system to their advantage....

The interstate commerce clause was part of the constitution to PREVENT THE STATES from having unfair rules against eachother... it has been so abused by the Feds....

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 03:28 AM

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 03:37 AM

Palit-Guy for President,
DaMulta for VP!
Pepsi for SoW

I want in at Secretary of War. I will conquer the world and succeed. We shall create a new all mighty American Empire.

Either way, im just so sick and tired of the political crap, and as one Israeli person said it on the news, "No matter who wins the Presidential election nothing will happen, just 4 more years of the same". And i think he is right, i don't think who ever gets into office, either Obama or McCain, i don't see anything happening.
Like I have said back in this thread.

There is the president, there is the senate, and there is congress.
Put in place to keep balance in the system.

It's not just those 3 groups of people tho. There are people under them that help come up with plans. Then those plans do show up in those 3 systems. Those people are not bound by a vote, or any kind of term base. When your party is in control those people from your party help those plans come into the light.

Yes all the main 3 do have an impact. They all have there own view points, and they are the yes and no votes in the end. It's just that a lot of thinking behind those plans come from people that are always there, and never(not always)get swapped out for different people with different ideas.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 03:58 AM

Pepsi are you willing to do the harm for the good of the world?

Get rid of all the bad, and keep the good?

All in one act, that would send us to hell for sure if we did it, but at the same time would end a lot of hate in the world.

I'll send a nuke via air force to ever country we don't like, and plant it hidden somewhere. Pull our forces out push the button and bam they are all gone. We move in and take it all.

Enemy = gone
Resources = Free and we will share
Population on Earth to big = we took care of that

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 04:08 AM

At the end of the day, all this argument over who should or should not be President is terribly misguided. The President himself has very little actual power to DO anything. A simple way to put it would be to say he is the go to guy when things get a little strange.

The only time he has any real power is when that happens or when we're at war and he's acting as the commander-in-chief.

In almost every way he cannot actually do anything without the consent of the Senate. If Iraq wanted to surrender tomorrow the President couldn't sign the treaty until the Senate approved it. Since it's not realistic for the entire Senate to sign every single thing, the President is the single person that represents them.

The people that actually control the country and determine what the budget is, what any national policy will be, when we go to war, when we come home, national health care, taxes and so on ad infenitum is the Senate.

The Senate is made up of the Congress and the House of Representatives. While we all may know who is running for President and we all have our opinions of what those individuals stand for and what they do, it is important to remember that he is really not much more than a figure head. The real power lies with our Senate.

So the most important people in this country when it comes to what direction we will take as a nation are really not even being discussed.

Here are some rhetorical questions to ponder.

Who are the State Representatives and Congress people for the state in which you reside? Do you know their mailing or email address? Have you ever sent them correspondence to discuss your opinion of how they should vote on any matter? Have you forwarded this thread to them? Have you ever met them? Would you sit down and discuss the situation with them if they asked you?

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 04:15 AM

I have met with a few one on one. I can say that, and talked to them one on one.

When you do talk to them, you really know that those people are people are just like you and me. There is noting more to that. They are people that want to make changes, and feel that they can make a difference. I do not believe that they are there for the money(maybe- and yes some are).

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 04:19 AM

Pepsi are you willing to do the harm for the good of the world?

Get rid of all the bad, and keep the good?

All in one act, that would send us to hell for sure if we did it, but at the same time would end a lot of hate in the world.

Lets face the facts that the west has become a bunch of cowards. We are all a bunch of diplomats who have nothing to do with action, but only talk. We could have ended this terrorist thing back in 2001. Withing 5 years we could have rid the world of these terrorists, and all terrorist. When done right we could end all that is wrong with the world, and manage to make allies at the same time.

To do so, you most certainly can't conquest with Nuclear weaponry. The land will be un-usable, and thus the resources botched. Part of conquest and divide deals with allies and picking your fights. Conquest has been part of humanity since man first walked.

The problem is you can create an American empire by picking your fights. The problem is we are fighting wars without the man-power available. This is the key to all issues of war, man-power available. When you fight wars you can't draw lines on a map and say you can't go here or there, because the enemy doesn't play that game. We can do good, and if we do good then we can fix our image that the world has of us. And a goo portion of the world hates us right now.The world looks at us as the world's police, and so we should step up to the plate and do it. Obama has said time and time again about send soldiers into Rwanda. We can invade and conquer Rwanda with the right number of troops, and we then turn Rwanda into a Colony. After it has been colonized we can then set up industry there, and then export American goods to Rwanda, and thus help balance our Trade-Deflect. And in doing so increase the wealth of America, and then we can buy out Canad and Mexico, and create a United North America.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 04:25 AM

Who are the State Representatives and Congress people for the state in which you reside? Do you know their mailing or email address? Have you ever sent them correspondence to discuss your opinion of how they should vote on any matter? Have you forwarded this thread to them? Have you ever met them? Would you sit down and discuss the situation with them if they asked you?

I have met quite a few Senators and Reps at a Social Function that we were at 2 years ago. I did speak to them and express concern about the 700Billion dollar bail out bill, i told them to vote no, because it would not allow the market to fix its self. And without fixing its self the market will eventual cause the country to collapse.
One Rep actually listened to my plans and my military background. And he said that i should have gone into ROTC and if i do go into the military, that he would help me get into OTS, and go straight into the officer ranks, because i am Officer material.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 04:38 AM

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 05:17 AM

I have met quite a few Senators and Reps at a Social Function that we were at 2 years ago. I did speak to them and express concern about the 700Billion dollar bail out bill, i told them to vote no, because it would not allow the market to fix its self. And without fixing its self the market will eventual cause the country to collapse.
One Rep actually listened to my plans and my military background. And he said that i should have gone into ROTC and if i do go into the military, that he would help me get into OTS, and go straight into the officer ranks, because i am Officer material.

I don't think you understand why the bail out was so important. Bush did save us!!!!

When people stared moving that mone (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1043355&postcount=2429)y(and they did so fast, that market had dropped a point has not done that in 20-40years. It's considered safe, but no high high gains like you get in the sp500), it went way way off balance to the breaking point. If it would not of been stopped the next day it would of locked up the entire system.

Companies would not be able to use loans that they use everyday to run their company.
People would not get their pay checks because banks could not get the loan to give the companies the money that day.
Just bad, really really bad.
BAD

bailout sucks, but had to be done.

das müffin mann

Nov 2, 2008, 05:49 AM

damulta i do agree with you somewhat
if we actually want to win this war we really can't hold back
there are 2 ways for us to stop or drastically reduce terrorism (IMO)
a) take away their cause leaving them no real reason to fight/or completely demoralize them (see option b)
b) provide an overwhelming show of force, we did that with japan...twice, and after said force was used the Japanese halted all suicide attacks against us, granted world opinion of us shifted but it more or less taught the world not to fuck with us unless your prepared to feel the full force of our arsenal
but nuclear weapons are not the right choice to deal with the situation, not so much for the initial destructive force, but because of the fallout from it

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 05:58 AM

pepsi71ocean

Conquest with Nuclear weaponry even just a little again. Would put fear and respect back into us in someway.

Why do we need to keep coming up with new ones if we are never going to use them?

Also where we did it the last time(I'm very glad we get along with them now and are now friends)they have cleaned up the mess, and still work there to this day.

When Israel did there little war, there was no holding back. They put fear into them, and in the end they got respect. To me, if we are going to fight a war, we should not hold back. No kicking in doors, non of that crap. We don't need to do those things.

We just destroy until they know, that we are in control. The fear will keep the peace.

IMO

Nuclear weapons would be useless in a conventional war. I would have started a draft on Sept. 12, 2001. I would have drafted 4 million soldiers for a period of 4 years. And i would force the draft to the point where you fight until the war is over. I would then turn around and issue an ultimatum that all countries in the world with terrorist shall turn the terrorist over, and if they lack the ability to do so, then we will come in there and clean the virus out for them. I would first send 2 million soldiers into the Philippines, i would give them 24 hour air support, and a no limits tag. I would allow those 2 million to clean out Alkieda that exists there. I would them tell the Taliban to surrender Osama Bin laden, and alkeida or else face prompt and utter destruction. It they refuse to give him up, i would air drop 500,000 soldiers into the country withing the first 24 hours. I would then send in an additional 700,000 ground assault troops, also with 24 air support, this time using B-52's and B-2, along with naval support form the Atlantic Fleet. I would then turn to the middle east and demand they hand over their terrorist. And i am quite certain that any of these governments that chant "Death to America, Death to Israel", would hand over those terrorist without a doubt, because they will not want to loose their rich filthy lives, with their 20 fucking wives, and their 300 foot mega yachts. By the end of September 2002, i will have control over the Philippines and Afghanistan. The terrorist would be wiped out. Pakistan would not dare stand up against the US Military might because for the same reasons, instead they wouldn't hobble over terrorist bases like they do now.

I would turn around(Using Iran as an example, not saying i would but i chose this one). If Iran pledged jihad to America, The Iranian government, btw, the Iranian people (ages10-28) support and like America, and often like the western values that exits, and it shows, and these teens have started the underground counter culture. I would turn around and issue an Ultimatum, stop this war now, or else. And if they call my bluff, i would do a massive build up of troops in the Persian Gulf, and in Afghanistan. Personally i would send 3 armored divisions totalizing around 300,000 soldiers each into Iran from the east via Afghanistan. At the same time i would send in shock troops basically airborne troops to secure bridges and tunnels needed on the roads leading through the mountains. At the same time i would land around an additional 100,000 soldiers along the gulf coast, and farther north where the desert regions are. I would send in Seabees who would then construction air strips that would allow C-17 Globe Masters , and C-5 Galaxy lifters to land and drop off supplies and soldiers. Withing 90 days the capitol will be over run. D-day+120 the Iranian People will have voted in a new government. At the same time there would be 1.8 Million soldiers in country to support anti-terrorism activities. And as before, there are no lines, so if Iraq has terrorist in its country that were going over the border into Iran to kill GI's, i would send in 50,000 soldiers to take it out.

Withing 5 years, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Philippines would be free from terrorism, along with any other Country that would request we come and clean them out in a diplomatic and peaceful manner. And at the same time no country or faction on the face of this earth will dare stand up against the United States for the next 50 or maybe 100 years. By the end of my first term as president the US Military will be a total of 16 million fighting soldiers strong, we will have rid the world of terrorism, and then we can begin to wind down. Our ability to raise such a superior fighting force will give us superiority in numbers. We could send a troop surge into Iran, or Iraq or anywhere and do it with man-power. We can send 500,000 or 1,000,000 Soldiers to a hot spot in a matter of weeks. This will give the Global War on Terrorism definition, and would most certainly make other countries especially those who hate us, a really bad though in their stomach the next time they think about supporting terrorist, or terrorist actions against America.This ladies and gentlemen is how wars are fought properly. Yes we may loose several thousand soldiers, but their death will not be in vein, because we have secured our freedom, and at the same time have shown to the world that we mean business.

Freedom doesn't come for free.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 06:00 AM

In In Iraq, if they attacked us in some town. We just bomb the crap out of it.

If they do a IED on us, we turn around and do the same thing around where the IED went off.

This does not take more people to do either. If they knew for a fact if they kidnapped someone, and we just bomb the hell out of where we think they are they will get the idea to back off.

I know that it sounds really horrible, but lets face it war is not peaceful, and never will be. What we are doing is being the nice guy to all the good people, and letting the bad guys slap up in the face and walk off. Sure those nice people that we are doing things would be effected as well. BUT that happens in war, it is unstoppable.

Doing what I said would of brought peace a lot faster, they would do anything we tell them to do.
Even with the ones that do not like us, because they would know that they would see our evil side if they tried anything again.

I would also not respect boarders. If you came from a neighboring country and attack us then ran back home. I would bomb the crap out of them in their country. Then I would tell that country I will keep doing that until you get your people to stop attacking us. Why do we let them get away with this? It blows my mind.....we should not be scared of anyone!

Nuclear weapons would be useless in a conventional war. I would have started a draft on Sept. 12, 2001. I would have drafted 4 million soldiers for a period of 4 years. And i would force the draft to the point where you fight until the war is over. I would then turn around and issue an ultimatum that all countries in the world with terrorist shall turn the terrorist over, and if they lack the ability to do so, then we will come in there and clean the virus out for them. I would first send 2 million soldiers into the Philippines, i would give them 24 hour air support, and a no limits tag. I would allow those 2 million to clean out Alkieda that exists there. I would them tell the Taliban to surrender Osama Bin laden, and alkeida or else face prompt and utter destruction. It they refuse to give him up, i would air drop 500,000 soldiers into the country withing the first 24 hours. I would then send in an additional 700,000 ground assault troops, also with 24 air support, this time using B-52's and B-2, along with naval support form the Atlantic Fleet. I would then turn to the middle east and demand they hand over their terrorist. And i am quite certain that any of these governments that chant "Death to America, Death to Israel", would hand over those terrorist without a doubt, because they will not want to loose their rich filthy lives, with their 20 fucking wives, and their 300 foot mega yachts. By the end of September 2002, i will have control over the Philippines and Afghanistan. The terrorist would be wiped out. Pakistan would not dare stand up against the US Military might because for the same reasons, instead they wouldn't hobble over terrorist bases like they do now.

I would turn around(Using Iran as an example, not saying i would but i chose this one). If Iran pledged jihad to America, The Iranian government, btw, the Iranian people (ages10-28) support and like America, and often like the western values that exits, and it shows, and these teens have started the underground counter culture. I would turn around and issue an Ultimatum, stop this war now, or else. And if they call my bluff, i would do a massive build up of troops in the Persian Gulf, and in Afghanistan. Personally i would send 3 armored divisions totalizing around 300,000 soldiers each into Iran from the east via Afghanistan. At the same time i would send in shock troops basically airborne troops to secure bridges and tunnels needed on the roads leading through the mountains. At the same time i would land around an additional 100,000 soldiers along the gulf coast, and farther north where the desert regions are. I would send in Seabees who would then construction air strips that would allow C-17 Globe Masters , and C-5 Galaxy lifters to land and drop off supplies and soldiers. Withing 90 days the capitol will be over run. D-day+120 the Iranian People will have voted in a new government. At the same time there would be 1.8 Million soldiers in country to support anti-terrorism activities. And as before, there are no lines, so if Iraq has terrorist in its country that were going over the border into Iran to kill GI's, i would send in 50,000 soldiers to take it out.

Withing 5 years, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Philippines would be free from terrorism, along with any other Country that would request we come and clean them out in a diplomatic and peaceful manner. And at the same time no country or faction on the face of this earth will dare stand up against the United States for the next 50 or maybe 100 years. By the end of my first term as president the US Military will be a total of 16 million fighting soldiers strong, we will have rid the world of terrorism, and then we can begin to wind down. Our ability to raise such a superior fighting force will give us superiority in numbers. We could send a troop surge into Iran, or Iraq or anywhere and do it with man-power. We can send 500,000 or 1,000,000 Soldiers to a hot spot in a matter of weeks. This will give the Global War on Terrorism definition, and would most certainly make other countries especially those who hate us, a really bad though in their stomach the next time they think about supporting terrorist, or terrorist actions against America.This ladies and gentlemen is how wars are fought properly. Yes we may loose several thousand soldiers, but their death will not be in vein, because we have secured our freedom, and at the same time have shown to the world that we mean business.

Freedom doesn't come for free.
Yes I total believe in the draft in a ways as well. If we declare real war we should use the draft. During other kinds of wars(wars that are not officially wars)no draft.
With the draft I do believe that they need to leave at least one son, if there is more than one. If you are the single son of a mother, then it would be your choice to go or not during the draft.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 06:29 AM

I don't think you understand why the bail out was so important. Bush did save us!!!!

When people stared moving that mone (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1043355&postcount=2429)y(and they did so fast, that market had dropped a point has not done that in 20-40years. It's considered safe, but no high high gains like you get in the sp500), it went way way off balance to the breaking point. If it would not of been stopped the next day it would of locked up the entire system.

Companies would not be able to use loans that they use everyday to run their company.
People would not get their pay checks because banks could not get the loan to give the companies the money that day.
Just bad, really really bad.
BAD

bailout sucks, but had to be done.

I believe that if companies have to borrow on credit to make good on their payroll then they should be up for review. Plus this crisis could have been avoided if Clinton had not made it so easy for Banks to make funny, money loans. And the blame also go to Appraisers, and Real Estate agents who started this price war thing in the first place. Home prices are over priced now, and all this crisis does is to help re-balance the system which now is unbalanced. IMO

damulta i do agree with you somewhat
if we actually want to win this war we really can't hold back
there are 2 ways for us to stop or drastically reduce terrorism (IMO)
a) take away their cause leaving them no real reason to fight/or completely demoralize them (see option b)
b) provide an overwhelming show of force, we did that with japan...twice, and after said force was used the Japanese halted all suicide attacks against us, granted world opinion of us shifted but it more or less taught the world not to fuck with us unless your prepared to feel the full force of our arsenal
but nuclear weapons are not the right choice to deal with the situation, not so much for the initial destructive force, but because of the fallout from it

After dropping Fat Man on Japan, without Japan replying to surrender terms on August 14, Curtis LeMay was so pissed off about japan's lack of interest of surrender(after the bombing of Nagasaki) that he ordered over 900+ B-29 Super fortresses into the air as a "show of force", this bomber stream was accompanied by over 150 P-51D's, over 1,000 Aircraft in total, a Bomber stream that many said were over 10 miles wide and a 100 miles long, It has been reported that Japanese Civilians who saw this show of force were so scared, because all you saw was bombers everywhere in the sky. So much so that this also foiled a Military Coup that was taking place in Tokyo. This raid struck fear in several generals who quickly changed places and sided with the Emperor. It was the firebombing of Japans Major cities that would eventually force the Emperor to want to sue for peace. By the time the last B-29 landed back on Siapan and Marianas the war was over, and Japan Surrendered. And as another show of force the Army Air force once again sent up 400 B-29's over Tokyo bay during the peace accords on the USS, Missouri.

I know that it sounds really horrible, but lets face it war is not peaceful, and never will be. What we are doing is being the nice guy to all the good people, and letting the bad guys slap up in the face and walk off. Sure those nice people that we are doing things would be effected as well. BUT that happens in war, it is unstoppable.

Doing what I said would of brought peace a lot faster, they would do anything we tell them to do.
Even with the ones that do not like us, because they would know that they would see our evil side if they tried anything again.
I would also not respect boarders. If you came from a neighboring country and attack us then ran back home. I would bomb the crap out of them in their country. Then I would tell that country I will keep doing that until you get your people to stop attacking us. Why do we let them get away with this? It blows my mind.....we should not be scared of anyone!

Yes I total believe in the draft in a ways as well. If we declare real war we should use the draft. During other kinds of wars(wars that are not officially wars)no draft.
With the draft I do believe that they need to leave at least one son, if there is more than one. If you are the single son of a mother, then it would be your choice to go or not during the draft.

I agree with you. I hate political wars, such as Vietnam Gulf War 1, and Gulf War 2, Afghanistan. It seems all that happens is good boys die because the enemy doesn't play by the rules. So why should we abide by stupid mandates and rules.

The draft, in the case of world war, does permit the drafting of Sons of last names, or disabled men, they would be put into desk jobs, and then the healthy men at those desk jobs would then be sent to the front lines.

I would support a full draft, having 16,000,000 soldiers would scare the shit off of anyone and any nation regardless of what ever. Even Iran or any Middle easy country would fear being invaded by a country with a numerically Superior army, especially when you can have 4 or 8 or 10 soldiers to each civilian in that country.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 06:51 AM

I believe that if companies have to borrow on credit to make good on their payroll then they should be up for review. Plus this crisis could have been avoided if Clinton had not made it so easy for Banks to make funny, money loans. And the blame also go to Appraisers, and Real Estate agents who started this price war thing in the first place. Home prices are over priced now, and all this crisis does is to help re-balance the system which now is unbalanced. IMO

Most companies are running on a credit constant loan. They are always paying it back, but there are times in between. Banks take loans in the billions and more everyday to do these things.(You can invest in this)Then they turn around and payback that loan that day.(You can invest in that also)
What happens if one group quits and invest in the other side to much?

The market is crazy

You can invest in a way if the Dow goes up that day you make money

or

You can invest in a way if the Dow went down you make money

It has been said(rumored)Bin Laden invested in it going down on 9/11 and made Billions.....
They still didn't stop that kind of trading......

Bush as I have heard(not for total sure) finally stopped this trading when the bailout plan came out...

Look into fact check about what happened after Clinton did what he did with sub-housing. There are other factors in what he did that caused this. He did it to help lower people get ahead. Then came other things as tax breaks for bigger homes, and more. There was a lot of time from when that came into affect and now, and the big boom of sudden burst of money being made.
Point being they seen it coming, people new, and they chose not to regulate it....they took the risk of just letting the market being the market with less regulation.

After dropping Fat Man on Japan, without Japan replying to surrender terms on August 14, Curtis LeMay was so pissed off about japan's lack of interest of surrender(after the bombing of Nagasaki) that he ordered over 900+ B-29 Super fortresses into the air as a "show of force", this bomber stream was accompanied by over 150 P-51D's, over 1,000 Aircraft in total, a Bomber stream that many said were over 10 miles wide and a 100 miles long, It has been reported that Japanese Civilians who saw this show of force were so scared, because all you saw was bombers everywhere in the sky. So much so that this also foiled a Military Coup that was taking place in Tokyo. This raid struck fear in several generals who quickly changed places and sided with the Emperor. It was the firebombing of Japans Major cities that would eventually force the Emperor to want to sue for peace. By the time the last B-29 landed back on Siapan and Marianas the war was over, and Japan Surrendered. And as another show of force the Army Air force once again sent up 400 B-29's over Tokyo bay during the peace accords on the USS, Missouri

We used to have MEN that ran our country!

----
Oh I was going to add. If the neighboring country wanted to attack us for bombing people that were attacking us> I would then use tactical nukes(small nukes) Just one or two.....then say are you sure you want to go to war over a small number of people that are attacking us and we are just putting a stop to it.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 07:01 AM

Most companies are running on a credit constant loan. They are always paying it back, but there are times in between. Banks take loans in the billions and more everyday to do these things.(You can invest in this)Then they turn around and payback that loan that day.(You can invest in that also)

It has been said(rumored)Bin Laden invested in it going down on 9/11 and made Billions.....
They still didn't stop that kind of trading......

Bush as I have heard(not for total sure) finally stopped this trading when the bailout plan came out...What happens if one group quits and invest in the other side to much?

What you are referring to is called Short term trading. It was banned by the SEC, not to long after FNM, and FRE went under.

I am a day trader on the stock Market, and Bin Laiden used CIA financed money from the Soviet-Afghan war to help build his money stockpile prior to 9/11. Short trading is currently banned only on Bank and housing (insurance)stocks. You can still short sell other stocks. And if i remember correctly the ban is to be lifted, or has been. The ban has been extended over and over to help prevent the stock from crashing.

We used to have MEN that ran our country!

----
Oh I was going to add. If the neighboring country wanted to attack us for bombing people that were attacking us> I would then use tactical nukes(small nukes) Just one or two.....then say are you sure you want to go to war over a small number of people that are attacking us and we are just putting a stop to it.

I believe that WW2, was the war of all wars. It was the war that showed how to run countries, and empires. It allowed the military cart-blanch to do what ever it takes to win. And unfortunately until that returns our military will have to play in the political sandbox.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 07:16 AM

I would support a full draft, having 16,000,000 soldiers would scare the shit off of anyone and any nation regardless of what ever. Even Iran or any Middle easy country would fear being invaded by a country with a numerically Superior army, especially when you can have 4 or 8 or 10 soldiers to each civilian in that country.

These days. If we wanted to show force, real force. we could use less people than we have now.

We can bomb like no tomorrow
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat_training/dust/iraq/thumbs/BACK_Nafricanmap.copy.jpg
Very Very easy.

I think you get what I'm looking at from where we could do that from.

We are more modern than they are BY FAR! We are the Bigger man by the thousands to what they could do to one of us!

Sending in a ton of troops would work also.
But did it take a ton of troops after they(enemy) knew it was over in WW2?

We did clean up after WW2.
We could do that anywhere.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 07:33 AM

These days. If we wanted to show force, real force. we could use less people than we have now.

We can bomb like no tomorrow
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat_training/dust/iraq/thumbs/BACK_Nafricanmap.copy.jpg
Very Very easy.

I think you get what I'm looking at from where we could do that from.

We are more modern than they are BY FAR! We are the Bigger man by the thousands to what they could do to one of us!

Sending in a ton of troops would work also.
But did it take a ton of troops after they(enemy) knew it was over in WW2?

We did clean up after WW2.
We could do that anywhere.

I feel that, this war, a war on terrorist would require man-power over technology. If you planted 700,000 soldiers on the border around Iraq, the terrorist could not get into the country, yes you can also say that you can use a Rover(unmanned airplane) to keep an eye on them, however in that case you would have to send soldiers over there which would still require time, and time is of the essence when you have terrorist running over the border on food, or by vehicles.

However, i think we should put in a bunker made out of reinforced steel and armed with x-ray equipment and machine guns, rifles etic. these would use the x-ray technology to scan the citizens as they walked by for weapons, boobs etic. If the machine detects a bomb then it will kill the person as soon as it is verified to be a bomb, not something else. And I would also recommend using spy satellites to keep live footage of jihadist, and then use them to track the jihadist back to where they came from, and then raid that house and confiscate the weapons.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 08:06 AM

My dad is the trader not me in all kinds of markets(big money I'll say that). I just know what he tells me about it. I he tells me how it works, not the really the names of what kind of investment it is.

I guess because he has been doing it so long, he just talks about whats behind the name...

So I'm kind of what to know the names of what he was telling me about.

CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/news/economy/housing/index.htm?postversion=2008091814)
Earlier this decade, it was much easier to get a mortgage. Home prices soared about 85% from 1996 through 2006 in inflation-adjusted dollars, creating a bubble.
To not see this coming until now is crazy that no one could see this coming.

The reason housing is wreaking havoc even on insurers like AIG and big investment banks, who do not make mortgage loans, is that during the boom, trillions of dollars of mortgages were packaged together into securities that promised to pay investors with the proceeds of those loan payments.

What market it is it to invest in those loans?
My dad told me that they where making money off of the equity some how.

But once prices topped out and began falling, loan defaults and foreclosures started shooting higher as homeowners found it more difficult to sell their house. This created problems not just for sub prime borrowers but even for those with good credit and income.

This is what I was talking about the banks mixing those different kinds of loans up. Then the equity went down big.

Now it was on NPR radio business hour: That's where I heard about the banks borrowing money back and forth daily to keep running. And then that point drop in it(the investment value)(they said something like 20-40 years from the last time it dropped a point)

They said when that happened people started money money fast. into the other side of that kind of investment. Causing the whole mess a lock on the system.

I had never new that banks ran that way before.
What kind of trading is that?

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 08:12 AM

I feel that, this war, a war on terrorist would require man-power over technology. If you planted 700,000 soldiers on the border around Iraq, the terrorist could not get into the country, yes you can also say that you can use a Rover(unmanned airplane) to keep an eye on them, however in that case you would have to send soldiers over there which would still require time, and time is of the essence when you have terrorist running over the border on food, or by vehicles.

However, i think we should put in a bunker made out of reinforced steel and armed with x-ray equipment and machine guns, rifles etic. these would use the x-ray technology to scan the citizens as they walked by for weapons, boobs etic. If the machine detects a bomb then it will kill the person as soon as it is verified to be a bomb, not something else. And I would also recommend using spy satellites to keep live footage of jihadist, and then use them to track the jihadist back to where they came from, and then raid that house and confiscate the weapons.
I don't think it would have to take that kind of force. These people have been fighting for 1000's of years.

We go in kind and peace full. We dictate to them what to do. We are there government running their government.

We bomb when they mess with us, or mess with each other. We put the fear of god in them. We could even just bomb around a city for days. And they would know!

We would have plenty of people. Just not tons of people. Just what it took to get the job done, and a back up.

SK-1

Nov 2, 2008, 09:47 AM

Excuse, but what's a Palit card?

:laugh::nutkick:

laszlo

Nov 2, 2008, 09:47 AM

We can bomb like no tomorrow

Very Very easy.

I think you get what I'm looking at from where we could do that from.

We are more modern than they are BY FAR! We are the Bigger man by the thousands to what they could do to one of us!

Sending in a ton of troops would work also.
But did it take a ton of troops after they(enemy) knew it was over in WW2?

We did clean up after WW2.
We could do that anywhere.

you could start bombing the the ones responsible for all this chaos created...btw all your bombs are made from your money i don't know why are you so proud having so much money invested in destruction instead of creation;with a fraction of your military expense from decades the water running car will be created so no more oil & oil war was needed but a few greedy who pull the strings need this to control and manipulate all of you and also us;your medical care sucks ,people from us go in Cuba,Canada England... for free medical aid is this normal?
of course is normal let's make another 100 nuke instead of giving to our citizens the basic needs ;if in a small country the democratic elected president don't accept the big american investors offer(which always is about oil or other mineral on the smallest price for you) you invade or kill him see Guatemala,Ecuador,Panama,Venezuela,and the last Irak

i bet if you recall all your troops and cut all military spendings no more war will start and so called terrorists will never attack you because this is the 1st reason why they love you so much-invading and imposing someone agenda- only than you'll become a respected nation

FudFighter

Nov 2, 2008, 11:04 AM

jeeze i leave for a few hours and come back to a bunch of warmongering.

Sorry guys, but killing every terrorist you find will do 1 thing, creat more, their family and friends, people who lost somebody will become the new terrorists.

watch some gundam seed for the love of god......it shows this mantality quite well(ok u will go crazy wanting to slap the main char but hey.....)

way i see it, patroll the borders of terrorist states, kill anybody who trys to get out, let them kill eachother till they are sick of it, eventuly they would get tired of it and stop if they where cut off from the rest of the world.

world should build walls around the middle east(ok, keep some access to the oil so we can TAKE IT) just let them have at eachother till they get sick of the killing and death......or till they manage to kill eachother off, eather way problem solved ;)

btarunr

Nov 2, 2008, 11:49 AM

^That just won't happen, although I agree with the part where when you kill one person who hates America, you spawn a few more.

WarEagleAU

Nov 2, 2008, 01:33 PM

Haha, good one BTA!!!

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 02:08 PM

you could start bombing the the ones responsible for all this chaos created...btw all your bombs are made from your money i don't know why are you so proud having so much money invested in destruction instead of creation;with a fraction of your military expense from decades the water running car will be created so no more oil & oil war was needed but a few greedy who pull the strings need this to control and manipulate all of you and also us;your medical care sucks ,people from us go in Cuba,Canada England... for free medical aid is this normal?
of course is normal let's make another 100 nuke instead of giving to our citizens the basic needs ;if in a small country the democratic elected president don't accept the big american investors offer(which always is about oil or other mineral on the smallest price for you) you invade or kill him see Guatemala,Ecuador,Panama,Venezuela,and the last Irak

i bet if you recall all your troops and cut all military spendings no more war will start and so called terrorists will never attack you because this is the 1st reason why they love you so much-invading and imposing someone agenda- only than you'll become a respected nation

Who is responsible for all of this? The terrorist? They came and bombed America, its just like Japan, when they Bombed us at Pearl Harbor. We didn't stand idle by while Japan attacked America, why should we do the same now? Trust me, Wars of Attrition works every time.

Second, our health care doesn't work that way, and besides we don't build 100 Nukes anymore, we haven't done nuclear weapons building for bout 8 years, since the Cold War has been Over. We can't trade off nuke building for health care, as our health care system is not socalised, all we have is Medicare and many hospitals and doctors are not accepting medicare anymore because medicare sucks and they screw the doctors and hospitals over.

We cannot cut military spending. If we did, then the world would attack us, or another piss ant country would, and then what do we do? kill them with sticks and stones because we have no military. And cutting military spending will not fix the view the world has of America. All you hippies think is that we invaded Iraq for oil. I ASK YOU, WHERE IS THE CHEAP OIL!? SHIT WE INVADED IRAQ WE SHOULD HAVE 40 DOLLAR A BARREL OIL RIGHT? Well, for the last 3 years where has it been? Oh that's right 4 dollar gas. WHERE Mr. War for oil, WHERE IS IT? LOL, That's right we never TOOK IT OUT OF THE GROUND.

Guatemala,Ecuador,Panama, all had more to do about fundamentalism, and drug trafficking then anything else. The Panama Incursion had more to do with capturing a drug lord, who had fled to the safety of Panama because the new Panamanian government took him in and said "we will harbor you"

Venezuela, Iran and Iraq, have nothing to do with oil. We didn't kill Chavez because he nationalized oil? We didn't kill whaach a macall it because he promoted Death to America. I believe the world is always threatening America. Hell, Iran chants "Death To America", yea you peace loving hippy, when we have no Army to defend our selves, what happens when Iran invades and attacks America or Israel of ally? Oh that's right we throw sticks and stones because we have no military to start wars, or end them, and that is where the problem lies, Ending wars required manpower, something that none of the western bloc nations except Israel can handle.

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 03:40 PM

The key to all this is education not war. People have been fighting against each other for centuries and it continues to this day. I'd say that a few centuries of data is enough draw that conclusion.

Think of it this way, if someone whoops your ass one of two things will happen. You either avoid that person or you find some other way to retaliate against them. Avoid them pretty much cuts off all contact between you and the alternative will eventually lead to more conflict. Either way, no one wins.

The same sort of stuff happens in the business world. Personally I love the Mac vs. PC commercials; because they are funny. But they are a sign that Mac doesn't want to work with PC to benefit the whole of computer users. Mac is trying to increase their following not by producing and marketing a superior product but by showing that PC is bad and you have no choice but to use Mac unless you want to be bad like PC. Huh?

I that analogy is on topic here because there are more than a few people that want to vote for Obama because they dislike McCain. The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'll reiterate the shit sandwich story from earlier. No one would eat a sandwich made of doody. It is equally not ok to eat a sandwich that just has a little doody hidden under the bologna.

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 03:55 PM

I'm not saying that it's impossible to end conflict via a military victory. But I think the end would be specifically limited the extermination of a specific people. Obviously that's no way to do things.

WWII and the bombing of Japan was brought up earlier. But the two of you ended your story too soon. It doesn't end with a couple bombs and a show of force. While hostilities ended in 1945 between Japan and everyone else, there was an American occupation force there until 1952.

Yup, that's right, from 1945 to 1952- 7 years, the US stayed on under the command of General MacArthur to accomplish the following:

To establish a responsible and democratic self-government.
To make sure that Japan will not be a new threat to the U.S and its allied.
To develop a sense of individual liberty and respect for human rights.
To develop a legal system which will protect individual and civil rights.
Most importantly, it was not the responsibility of the Allies powers to impose upon Japan any form of Government not supported by the freely expressed will of the people.

Source: http://www.empereur.com/DOC/Japan_occup.html

Education was key to accomplishing all those goals. The fact that the military did should not be astounding. They worked with civilians and government officials and provided a strong arm when needed usually determined by the Japanese.

I'm not saying everything went smoothly but the goals were admirable and the military stuck to them as much as human beings can do so.

This is the same path we should be taking in Iraq. Get a military hold on things so people can move about the country without the imminent threat of death. then we can get to the business of educating everyone so they can stand up for themselves. Believe it or not, most of the people that live in these distraught regions are not fans of terrorism, war or death. They would love to govern themselves without living under tyranny OR US occupation.

Just another example of a special interest group run amuck.

The point of all this is to get those of you that think a military solution is possible to understand it isn't possible. Eventually the military has to leave the area and if you don't want them back there in a year or two the people that live there have to be able to manage their own affairs and prevent the people that created the situation in the first place from doing so again.

WarEagleAU

Nov 2, 2008, 03:57 PM

I Agree the lesser of two evils is still evil, but its a best case scenario way of thinking. I feel safer with McCain as CIC than with Obama. I am kind of excited to see if Obama can do any reaching across the isles and getting America;s image back at the same time. We will have to see how it plays out. To me Obama is too much forward with his flip flopping than McCain is.

laszlo

Nov 2, 2008, 04:01 PM

Who is responsible for all of this? The terrorist? They came and bombed America, its just like Japan, when they Bombed us at Pearl Harbor. We didn't stand idle by while Japan attacked America, why should we do the same now? Trust me, Wars of Attrition works every time.

Second, our health care doesn't work that way, and besides we don't build 100 Nukes anymore, we haven't done nuclear weapons building for bout 8 years, since the Cold War has been Over. We can't trade off nuke building for health care, as our health care system is not socalised, all we have is Medicare and many hospitals and doctors are not accepting medicare anymore because medicare sucks and they screw the doctors and hospitals over.

We cannot cut military spending. If we did, then the world would attack us, or another piss ant country would, and then what do we do? kill them with sticks and stones because we have no military. And cutting military spending will not fix the view the world has of America. All you hippies think is that we invaded Iraq for oil. I ASK YOU, WHERE IS THE CHEAP OIL!? SHIT WE INVADED IRAQ WE SHOULD HAVE 40 DOLLAR A BARREL OIL RIGHT? Well, for the last 3 years where has it been? Oh that's right 4 dollar gas. WHERE Mr. War for oil, WHERE IS IT? LOL, That's right we never TOOK IT OUT OF THE GROUND.

Guatemala,Ecuador,Panama, all had more to do about fundamentalism, and drug trafficking then anything else. The Panama Incursion had more to do with capturing a drug lord, who had fled to the safety of Panama because the new Panamanian government took him in and said "we will harbor you"

Venezuela, Iran and Iraq, have nothing to do with oil. We didn't kill Chavez because he nationalized oil? We didn't kill whaach a macall it because he promoted Death to America. I believe the world is always threatening America. Hell, Iran chants "Death To America", yea you peace loving hippy, when we have no Army to defend our selves, what happens when Iran invades and attacks America or Israel of ally? Oh that's right we throw sticks and stones because we have no military to start wars, or end them, and that is where the problem lies, Ending wars required manpower, something that none of the western bloc nations except Israel can handle.

responsible is your elite who owns you and have the power to rule ;bush is a fool puppet ;the next president will do what they tell if not they kill him like kennedy who has the guts to try doing more for you people...

maybe you're hippie because you don't understand what had become america; you send the army to support american interest of the big companies;is a good business to destroy a country than re-build it and how they pay you back ? what's your tip?

why don't you make a strike against high prices which are kept only to empty your pockets...where you think are going the 700 billions? in your pockets ..? keep dreaming they will go out from your pockets to your great banks who control your life because they must survive no matter what cost you;this was the 1st sign that this form of free-market capitalism is condemned ;a bankrupt company to saved by government from peoples money good joke and great business :wtf:

Bigjohn

Nov 2, 2008, 04:03 PM

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 04:05 PM

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 04:09 PM

As for people around the world not liking the US, it's hard not to blame them. The US is extremely militant. We play with toy guns before we can even walk and hold our service men and women in the highest possible regard.

We have covert operations that fund one group or another for a while, only to change the group we help when our internal political climate changes. Either one group or the other is "right" and it makes little sense to change our support of a group just because our President's political party changed.

When we travel abroad, far too many of us look down on the people of the country we visit because they don't speak English. Those same people then get upset when foreign people come here to visit and don't speak English. At what point are people not required to speak English?

We have the most lax gun laws of any major country I'm aware of. There is a general perception among non-US folks that US folks are all gun toting war mongers that prefer to shoot first and ask questions later.

Non-US folks read forums like this and see people like Pepsi and Damulta advocating the use of massive force to wipe out a problem. Most Americans don't see what the big deal is because we don't see the carnage produced by an active conflict the way Europeans and most other nations see it. Our news doesn't show burnt dead bodies, destroyed cities and villages and tanks driving down main street in the same way other countries do. Yes, we see it a little bit but there are millions of other people world wide that see it day in and day out for years on end.

Some of these things are true about Americans and some aren't. But unless you walk a mile in a US citizen's shoes, all of it is taken out of context and is impossible to truly understand. In the course of my job I get to talk to a lot of people that aren't US citizens and I am continually surprised by the look on their face when I tell them that most Americans would prefer to just leave the world alone and do our own thing. We don't want to take over everything and make everyone's government run like ours.

The japan issue is a great example of this. You couldn't get any more conservative than the Republicans of 1945 yet even they insisted that Japan be able to choose their own form of government even if that meant it wasn't like ours. Which it isn't.

WhiteLotus

Nov 2, 2008, 04:10 PM

Why did Bush started building bunker busting nuclear bombs then....we still build them, and make new ones.

We are making tactical nukes as well. Small nukes.

We are also working on hand held nuclear bombs that solders could use.

We have not stopped making them.

how is hand held nuke be developed? sounds like a really big grenade!

btarunr

Nov 2, 2008, 04:13 PM

how is hand held nuke be developed? sounds like a really big grenade!

I guess somewhat like the Redeemer in UT.

WhiteLotus

Nov 2, 2008, 04:16 PM

I guess somewhat like the Redeemer in UT.

i would only invest in such a thing if i can also remote control it to fly around first right before i send it up some poor smucks arse.

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 04:21 PM

responsible is your elite who owns you and have the power to rule ;bush is a fool puppet ;the next president will do what they tell if not they kill him like kennedy who has the guts to try doing more for you people...

maybe you're hippie because you don't understand what had become america; you send the army to support american interest of the big companies;is a good business to destroy a country than re-build it and how they pay you back ? what's your tip?

why don't you make a strike against high prices which are kept only to empty your pockets...where you think are going the 700 billions? in your pockets ..? keep dreaming they will go out from your pockets to your great banks who control your life because they must survive no matter what cost you;this was the 1st sign that this form of free-market capitalism is condemned ;a bankrupt company to saved by government from peoples money good joke and great business :wtf:

What you need to understand is that, when it comes to military and paramilitary operations, the American public is almost completely in the dark and don't know anything about what's going on.

I say again, it all comes back to education. more information about US driven paramilitary operations during the 70's is being disclosed every day. But it takes time for this information to get into the education system and for people to find out it's been going on. It then takes more time for those people who agree that it's wrong to then grow up, get elected into office and then refuse to approve the funds for such operations.

But that is difficult. People who get elected have to spend money to get people to elect them. When you owe someone a debt it needs to be repaid. It takes great courage to stand up to someone you owe and tell them you will not do something for them when they ask. Especially if they can leverage you with something you've done that isn't good or threaten you or your family in some way.

I think it's a good idea to have term limitations for the President. While he may not have much real power, he does have the ability to be "persuasive" in many ways. Term limitations prevent us, by law, from finding ourselves with effectively a dictator or king.

I also think we should have term limitations for Senate members. Originally members of the Senate just were wealthy folks who could afford to take a couple years off their normal jobs and spend a few in the service of the government. Lately it's turned into people being a lawyer for a few years and then moving into politics permanently and never having done an honest day's work in their lives.

That's the biggest reason I like Palin for VP. She doesn't have a lot of experience at the "political" game and i think she will just run around doing what she thinks is right. We need that kind of simple thinking without undue influence from small interest groups or large corporations.

We need to strike some kind of balance in all this.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 04:41 PM

how is hand held nuke be developed? sounds like a really big grenade!

Yea, a really big grenade.

Like a 100 ton bomb(guessing) that you can hold in your hand......

-------

I would like to say. War is not pretty. I know that I have never seen it, but I have had family that was on D-Day and other parts of the war that have told me the dark details.
It is horrible no way to say that it is not. Women and children die, everyone dies. To think other wise would be stupid. It's just a part of war.

War is something that should be the last resort, but I do believe if you do go to war don't hold back at all until it is over. That's what I was talking about.

Clearly we could not change into a bomb running campaign, because we have invested to much time into what we are doing now. I was just pointing out that we should of never backed down until there was peace and fear.

WarEagleAU

Nov 2, 2008, 04:41 PM

Wow Palit_guy, you have a nice graps on geopolitical climate and homemade politics.

I agree on the education in the early days (60s, 70s, and 80s). I myself was born in 79 and I remember the 80s, as far as prices and money being alot stronger than today. Of course, everything wasnt sugar coated, but my dad was a steelmaker and made hellacious money to support 11 of us (9 kids and he and my mom).

DaedalusHelios

Nov 2, 2008, 04:50 PM

That and the fact that he's supposedly a "constitutional scholar" who's wiping his ass with the constitution and calls it a "defective" document...

Got a source on that, One that is more than republican rumor?

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 04:58 PM

@ WarEagle

I'm not sure how much of it I understand actually. Over the last couple years I've been reading the basics like the constitution. I've lived in Germany as a civilian with their equivalent of a green card, visited several European countries, lived in several states over the years and through the course of my job have met more people than I can even count.

I've had manual labor jobs (carpenter, hod carrier etc.) and I've had white collar jobs. Been married three times, been to war (kind of the same thing) and have sold just about everything under the sun at one time or another. Didn't go to college.

All in all I think I'm a pretty average guy. I hated history in any form in school but now I'm beginning to understand why it's important to know what happened.

Through all this, I just try to examine what I know, listen to what other people are saying and just see what I can put together. i always try to dumb things down because I actually believe that nothing is really that complicated.

As I look back at things I just try to examine them one step at a time and see where the hiccups are. they usually stand out if you take the emotion out of the conversation and just look at the facts.

DaedalusHelios

Nov 2, 2008, 05:04 PM

That's the biggest reason I like Palin for VP. She doesn't have a lot of experience at the "political" game and i think she will just run around doing what she thinks is right. We need that kind of simple thinking without undue influence from small interest groups or large corporations.

We need to strike some kind of balance in all this.

Well she is not any more a political outsider than Obama. Her husband's influence in the "secessionist" Alaska independence party helped her become mayor of that small town and then governor of Alaska. Her husband was an oil executive until she became a governor when he had to drop that position for "conflict of interest" and buy up a construction company that was involved with road construction. Was the construction company in Alaska involved with the "road to nowhere"? I am looking into it.

The Alaska independence party believes Alaska should break off from the US to become its own country. Thats what secessionist refers to and thats anti-American by definition. So its Alaska first, not "America First" in those people's eyes.

Bigjohn

Nov 2, 2008, 06:11 PM

Well she is not any more a political outsider than Obama. Her husband's influence in the "secessionist" Alaska independence party helped her become mayor of that small town and then governor of Alaska. Her husband was an oil executive until she became a governor when he had to drop that position for "conflict of interest" and buy up a construction company that was involved with road construction. Was the construction company in Alaska involved with the "road to nowhere"? I am looking into it.

The Alaska independence party believes Alaska should break off from the US to become its own country. Thats what secessionist refers to and thats anti-American by definition. So its Alaska first, not "America First" in those people's eyes.

Even if that stuff you're getting from the daily KOOK (er, KOS) were true in that context....
The fact that someone believes that a state has the right to secede when they feel the 'federal' is not doing it's duty, well, that person understands the constitution and what the framer's intended. These United States - are a membership federation, not a mandatory one.

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 06:15 PM

I don't really know that much about Alaska or its history. I just read a couple short things about it and it's interesting. Basically the US bought property from someone who didn't own it but rather had "acquired" it. Sounds familiar.

Regardless, if some sort of majority (I would think at least two thirds) of the populace want to secede from the union, why not?

Before we get into the whole civil war thing, remember what the civil war was about. The right of states to govern themselves. Slavery was just the particular element that has always been focused on. The idea to secede started when Missouri became a state. That made northern states outnumber (in senate seats) southern states and would thus leave them powerless to oppose (in their minds) any laws the northern states wanted to impose upon them.

There was also an issue of the roll of Senate members of southern states not actually representing the interests of their constituency. Most people in the south were opposed to slavery including the slaves. The south considered slaves not to be citizens and therefore without rights whereas the constitution made no distinction between race. But even that is misleading, it wasn't the south that held that opinion. It was the politically powerful and the wealthy plantation owners that kept the politically powerful in their positions. The almost exclusive source of income in southern states, at the time, was cotton. Without any other significant sources of wealth and a remarkably few individuals controlling the cotton market the number of people in control of all things southern was very small indeed.

The only reason (in my opinion) the civil war happened is that the south seceded without securing the permission of the Senate first. that made the secession an illegal act although I can't find any law that says that. Surely there is one and I just didn't find it. If there is no such law and a simple declaration of intent is all that's needed then we should rename the Civil War to something more accurate since, after making their declaration, the southern states were no longer part of the USA.

So I have to think there is no reason Alaska shouldn't be able to secede IF they can present their case to the Senate AND the Senate approves it.

The situation in Alaska is not about human rights or not enough people having an impact on their Senate members. In my cursory investigation into it (http://www.akip.org/ ) I have to admit the independence party has some valid points. It definitely seems to me the federal government exercises some authority that no other state would tolerate. For example, subsurface rights are owned by the federal government. I haven't done any research to verify whether or not their claims are true. But assuming they are i find many aspects of the Alaska issue appalling.

I would encourage everyone to do substantial research into the problem before forming an actual opinion on whether or not Alaska has grounds to consider seceding. I limit my opinion at this time to the fact that they should have the right to make their case before the Senate.

Tatty_One

Nov 2, 2008, 06:23 PM

In In Iraq, if they attacked us in some town. We just bomb the crap out of it.

If they do a IED on us, we turn around and do the same thing around where the IED went off.
.

Lol, I find that kind of amusing, thats exactly what the US did in iraq in the first few months after the country was taken, and you had to stop because within weeks you were losing more and more troops....why? because when you "bomb the crap" out of a town, you kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people INCLUDING women and children, overnight your enemies multiply because of that act (which by the way, is a form of genocide which is for the sake of this debate, one of the things WE used as an excuse to go in there in the first place to stop).

The US stopped doing that and their casulties over time became fewer, they began to follow the UK's "hearts and minds" philosphy, a philosphy which they scorned beforehand by the way, we (the UK), sent some of our troops north from basra to "train" some of your forces in those methods, at first the US forces didnt like it much, because you cannot win "hearts and minds" from a Tank or Personnel carrier, you have to patrol the streets on foot (something the UK has always done and is still the only force to do so consistently in Afghanistan.......bottom line here is, if you just Nuked or bombed the crap out of these places, you, as a country would have no friends, and over time, when all these "innocent" deaths were racking up, eventually most of the civilised world would turn against you (most brutal regimes throughout history have suffered similar), apart from a worldwide embargo against the US (so no oil!), whatever your thoughts on your own power, you would ultimately be defeated, then no longer would you be "the land of the free", just as most of the innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan still are not free today........but hopefully, between your great nation and a little help from your friends :) there will be soon.......and that really is something we can all be proud of......bombing "the crap" out of them will bring short term gain, but with that most certainly will come long term pain.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 07:03 PM

Lol, I find that kind of amusing, thats exactly what the US did in iraq in the first few months after the country was taken, and you had to stop because within weeks you were losing more and more troops....why? because when you "bomb the crap" out of a town, you kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people INCLUDING women and children, overnight your enemies multiply because of that act (which by the way, is a form of genocide which is for the sake of this debate, one of the things WE used as an excuse to go in there in the first place to stop).

The US stopped doing that and their casulties over time became fewer, they began to follow the UK's "hearts and minds" philosphy, a philosphy which they scorned beforehand by the way, we (the UK), sent some of our troops north from basra to "train" some of your forces in those methods, at first the US forces didnt like it much, because you cannot win "hearts and minds" from a Tank or Personnel carrier, you have to patrol the streets on foot (something the UK has always done and is still the only force to do so consistently in Afghanistan.......bottom line here is, if you just Nuked or bombed the crap out of these places, you, as a country would have no friends, and over time, when all these "innocent" deaths were racking up, eventually most of the civilised world would turn against you (most brutal regimes throughout history have suffered similar), apart from a worldwide embargo against the US (so no oil!), whatever your thoughts on your own power, you would ultimately be defeated, then no longer would you be "the land of the free", just as most of the innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan still are not free today........but hopefully, between your great nation and a little help from your friends :) there will be soon.......and that really is something we can all be proud of......bombing "the crap" out of them will bring short term gain, but with that most certainly will come long term pain.

If we never backed down, I think what we did in the first place would of stuck more in the end.

you kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people INCLUDING women and children
I have admitted this, it is very bad, but a part of war.

As said above with Japan we did not back down until the fear was there. Then we were able to do the things that we are trying to do with less problems.

IMO of course

You were there, you seen it, you certainly understand what was going on there more than I EVER WILL.

@Damulta

Please stop saying stupid things like blowing up towns because there was a bomb in the vicinity. Seriously. Are you drunk?

How about this? Some mailboxes in your area get M80s tossed in them and blown up. So the police react by coming along and arresting everyone in the area including you. They do this because there's a 90% probability that the culprits live in the area where the explosions took place.

How would you like to explain to your boss that you were arrested for something you didn't do and had nothing to do with whatsoever? You wouldn't because the police don't operate like that. It doesn't make any sense.

The only thing it would cause is people to go vigilante and take out whoever they thought did it. You can only hope the vigilantes get it right though.

My war talk is now over.

It is a very touchy subject, even more than politics because it deals with real people and real lifes.

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 07:12 PM

@Damulta

Please stop saying stupid things like blowing up towns because there was a bomb in the vicinity. Seriously. Are you drunk?

How about this? Some mailboxes in your area get M80s tossed in them and blown up. So the police react by coming along and arresting everyone in the area including you. They do this because there's a 90% probability that the culprits live in the area where the explosions took place.

How would you like to explain to your boss that you were arrested for something you didn't do and had nothing to do with whatsoever? You wouldn't because the police don't operate like that. It doesn't make any sense.

The only thing it would cause is people to go vigilante and take out whoever they thought did it. You can only hope the vigilantes get it right though.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 07:22 PM

Just to add Tatty.

One of my good friends that is now back. Did a tour in Afghanistan(He believed we should not of respected the boarders at all)that affected him all the time. They could not do anything about it.
He does say that the people in Afghanistan will work with you, but the people in Iraq do not work with you. Because of that he said it is a total different war.

He also did two tours in Iraq, one time living thru a IED blast(can not hear out of one ear now)He has seen some crazy things such as someone going into a school gym and blowing themselves up and killing all the kids that were there. He seen that, and I know that will always be there with him.
He believes that we should of never of backed down, and just pushed harder till they understood to completely stop what they are doing.

patrol the streets on foot is something he clearly says does not work on them.

He came back around the start of this year.

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 07:25 PM

newconroer

Nov 2, 2008, 07:27 PM

We cannot cut military spending. If we did, then the world would attack us, or another piss ant country would, and then what do we do? kill them with sticks and stones because we have no military. And cutting military spending will not fix the view the world has of America.

It depends on what you cut. Eight hundred and some bases around the world? One trillion dollars a year? Necessary? Absolutley not.

That kind of cutting would not weaken the military, it would make stronger, because some of the money could go into a stronger national defense, instead of an over-zealous and costly offense.

The view the world has of America, is noone but America's fault. Sure, the Middle East is full of twisted nut-jobs, and the Asians are plenty bizzare... but they've always been like that. The WORLD has changed itself, and America has a large part in that unfortunatley.

Regardless, having military bases in other countries who clearly don't want them there, isn't helping anything, and all the while it's costing the u.S. lives and money.

WWII and Japan was entirely different. A WAR! was going on, a WORLD WAR, and it was a military/strategic plan (though not a good one) by Japan, during a WORLD WAR. America did the right thing and ended that portion of it quickly, with an atomic bomb, but military campaigns in the far east did not end on that note, because it was a WAR.

Iraq is not a WAR; it's just a bloodier version of Desert Storm, which was not a war, but rather a political wag-the-dog.

It's pretty simple to me. Get the troops out, cut the spending and decide whether to bomb the whole place, or just leave it be.

Just to add Tatty.

One of my good friends that is now back. Did a tour in Afghanistan(He believed we should not of respected the boarders at all)that affected him all the time. They could not do anything about it.
He does say that the people in Afghanistan will work with you, but the people in Iraq do not work with you. Because of that he said it is a total different war.

He also did two tours in Iraq, one time living thru a IED blast(can not hear out of one ear now)He has seen some crazy things such as someone going into a school gym and blowing themselves up and killing all the kids that were there. He seen that, and I know that will always be there with him.
He believes that we should of never of backed down, and just pushed harder till they understood to completely stop what they are doing.

patrol the streets on foot is something he clearly says does not work on them.

He came back around the start of this year.

Your friend apparently, despite all his first hand 'expertise,' in the Middle East, knows nothing of Middle Eastern zeal and politics.
Pushing harder will only make them push back harder. They have only ideals to live for, not mortality, or families, or shiny precious automobiles in their four car garages on some Malibu lane parkway.

I remember this picture several years ago, of these badass Abrams tanks rolling down a dusty road in the Middle East, and some little kid, probably less than ten years old, was dressed in rebel garb, whilst holding a sling-shot with a rock in it, aimed at the tank. Now...this is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by too much. If little kids are willing to run out and pull a David vs. Goliath, against a military that's supposedly trying to 'help' by spreading Democracy, than you know something's not right.

Palit_Guy

Nov 2, 2008, 07:48 PM

Newconroer- These are some very valid points about the religious nature of this war on the Iraq side. Definitely a nasty business when you combine religion, politics and gun powder.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 09:16 PM

It depends on what you cut. Eight hundred and some bases around the world? One trillion dollars a year? Necessary? Absolutley not.
That kind of cutting would not weaken the military, it would make stronger, because some of the money could go into a stronger national defense, instead of an over-zealous and costly offense.

No it wouldn't not cut out on offense, or defense, but it would KILL the ECONOMY of that COUNTRY, and then when we pull out of these countries that have built and catered to the needs of these bases, their economies will tank and go to hell, then they will blame us for that.

Plus i don't think that the Germans o0r the Turks, or the Saudis hate American Military Bases in their countries, or most if not all the rest. What about South Korea, or Taiwan? Those countries are grateful for having screaming gun-ho Marines in there.

The view the world has of America, is noone but America's fault. Sure, the Middle East is full of twisted nut-jobs, and the Asians are plenty bizzare... but they've always been like that. The WORLD has changed itself, and America has a large part in that unfortunatley. Regardless, having military bases in other countries who clearly don't want them there, isn't helping anything, and all the while it's costing the u.S. lives and money.

What countries are these? And don't you dare say Iraq and Afghanistan, because they do not count since these countries are currently at war against terrorism.

WWII and Japan was entirely different. A WAR! was going on, a WORLD WAR, and it was a military/strategic plan (though not a good one) by Japan, during a WORLD WAR. America did the right thing and ended that portion of it quickly, with an atomic bomb, but military campaigns in the far east did not end on that note, because it was a WAR.

Yes, WW2 was different, because it was a "real war" not some made up political crap. This is where we as the world have lost it. We fight these political wars(or police actions), which by their nature are un-winnable. War must be fought, and i will tell you this, i have friends over there, and some of them admit that we go "over the fence" to kill some of these terrorist, because regular line troops can't, because they are over the line in the sand. Hell the terrorist can shoot and kill American troops on the border, and we can't fire back because the terrorist are on the wrong side. This is the political crap is what separates police actions from wars.

Iraq is not a WAR; it's just a bloodier version of Desert Storm, which was not a war, but rather a political wag-the-dog.
It's pretty simple to me. Get the troops out, cut the spending and decide whether to bomb the whole place, or just leave it be.

You are Right!, Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars, they are police actions. Because if they were wars we would have kicked the shit out of every country in the middle east.

I remember this picture several years ago, of these badass Abrams tanks rolling down a dusty road in the Middle East, and some little kid, probably less than ten years old, was dressed in rebel garb, whilst holding a sling-shot with a rock in it, aimed at the tank. Now...this is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by too much. If little kids are willing to run out and pull a David vs. Goliath, against a military that's supposedly trying to 'help' by spreading Democracy, than you know something's not right.

Massive force will leave to victory, yes you might kill some terrroist, and that creates new terrorist, but then again do you really think that these countries in the middle east don't have control of the terrorism. Iran and Lebanon fund Terrorist orginazation called Hesbolla, and that terrorist organization has been at war against Israel for over 30 years. Israel went into Lebanon and kicked the shit out of them, and they were winning until the U.N. got involved and said "Bad Israel". Hell i rounded up 40+ friends of mine who are hard core, and we formed "The America Brigade". All of us are knowledgeable in Tae Kwundo, Judo, and Akido, and we all are marksmen and hunters by nature. We were going to go over there, and go into the parts of Lebanon where Israel couldn't. Hired mercenaries we wanted to be, but unfortunately by the time that we got things set up the war was over. wire and do the dirty work, because we felt that the U.N. had no place to get involved with this.

And the U.N. is doing the same stunt now, I really think that the U.N. Back terrorism, because if the U.S. doesn't get this treaty signed our troops will be stuck in their barracks after December 31, and what good does dead weight have in an unstable country, all this does is reinforce the worlds view of how we ruined Iraq.

Newconroer- These are some very valid points about the religious nature of this war on the Iraq side. Definitely a nasty business when you combine religion, politics and gun powder.
Agreed .

DaMulta

Nov 2, 2008, 09:22 PM

O know I said I would stop with the war talk....

It's pretty simple to me. Get the troops out, cut the spending and decide whether to bomb the whole place, or just leave it be.

I find this interesting, because that's what my dad has been screaming the whole time. Bomb the whole place and let it be. If they rebuild again and we don't like it, do it again. Everyone wants to get ahead in life, everyone no matter where you are from. They will get it right at some point
I myself just don't see that being the right thing to do personally.

U did have some interesting points that you did make.

It is really bad that I and everyone else that is talking about this, is that it's about real people. People are not numbers, we like to think that sometimes, but that's untrue.

For that I do feel bad about talking about war, how it should be done, how we should kill people and all the rest of it.

It is never a nice thing to talk about, it's a very hard subject, and a very evil subject. It's very horrible that we human beings do these things to one another instead of finding common ground to share.

More so today, because never in the history of man could we talk, travel, and learn things about each other like we have been able to do for the last 100 years. We should be able to learn from our past, and understand that evil is evil and evil is never the way to act to another person.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 09:39 PM

O know I said I would stop with the war talk....
I myself just don't see that being the right thing to do personally.
U did have some interesting points that you did make.
It is really bad that I and everyone else that is talking about this, is that it's about real people. People are not numbers, we like to think that sometimes, but that's untrue.
For that I do feel bad about talking about war, how it should be done, how we should kill people and all the rest of it.
It is never a nice thing to talk about, it's a very hard subject, and a very evil subject. It's very horrible that we human beings do these things to one another instead of finding common ground to share.
More so today, because never in the history of man could we talk, travel, and learn things about each other like we have been able to do for the last 100 years. We should be able to learn from our past, and understand that evil is evil and evil is never the way to act to another person.

I agree, and it truly is a shame no doubt, however mankind is belligerent by nature. And while world peace will most likely never exist, the horrors of genocide and war have not disappeared either.

I feel that it is necessary to point out a good quote form the late Josef Stalin; "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Unfortunately, we as a world have become more weary of things, and we are hypersensitive to how the world views us, or how one country views another actions. In an era where we would be one united empire, and we should be pulling our resources to colonies other planets, not other countries. We should be expanding to other planets, extending the Human race to Mars, and the moon, and we should be developing hyper transport to beam ourselves between distant stars, instead of nuclear bombs the size of a briefcase.

But, i guess that this will never be true, so as long as one caveman beat up the other caveman for his extended living space for his growing family. However, despite me looking like a warmonger, i feel that the next great move to colonize and attack should be under the banner and flag of the world, and not on some small country.

newconroer

Nov 2, 2008, 09:47 PM

No it wouldn't not cut out on offense, or defense, but it would KILL the ECONOMY of that COUNTRY, and then when we pull out of these countries that have built and catered to the needs of these bases, their economies will tank and go to hell, then they will blame us for that.

And the alternative is to what?; stay there under the premise that they might get upset that American retreat resulted in a fluxuation in their economy? Come on, how long must it go on. The forefathers WARNED emphatically about entangling alliances, and TODAY is the proof in the pudding. Your example is the proof in the pudding...

Yes, America is ass deep in a lot of things they shouldn't be, but while all that's going on, Americans are dying, and the AMERICAN ECONOMY is going to shit. We don't want to see anyone suffer, but America does not have a responsibility to anyone but thesmelves.
It's time to pull the plug.

Plus i don't think that the Germans o0r the Turks, or the Saudis hate American Military Bases in their countries, or most if not all the rest. What about South Korea, or Taiwan? Those countries are grateful for having screaming gun-ho Marines in there.
No, obviously some countries rather enjoy the presences and 'protection,' but why should they get it? Again, not America's responsibility. Maybe in a future world where everything is a 'hands-across-the-world' utopia, and there's only a small amount of 'baddies,' left, then America can 'help' out others; but for now, they need to turn their attention to themselves.

You got babies found in garbage cans, teenage mothers with four kids on welfare and no future, disabled vets dying in the gutters, kids taking guns to school, continous poverty, a rising inflation, a rising unemployment, a massive immigration issue, an overbearing income tax, a dwindling housing market...shall I go on? And you're supposed to care about some people across the ocean?

Yes, WW2 was different, because it was a "real war" not some made up political crap. This is where we as the world have lost it. We fight these political wars(or police actions), which by their nature are un-winnable. War must be fought, and i will tell you this, i have friends over there, and some of them admit that we go "over the fence" to kill some of these terrorist, because regular line troops can't, because they are over the line in the sand. Hell the terrorist can shoot and kill American troops on the border, and we can't fire back because the terrorist are on the wrong side. This is the political crap is what separates police actions from wars.

Agreed.

Massive force will leave to victory, yes you might kill some terrroist, and that creates new terrorist, but then again do you really think that these countries in the middle east don't have control of the terrorism. Iran and Lebanon fund Terrorist orginazation called Hesbolla, and that terrorist organization has been at war against Israel for over 30 years. Israel went into Lebanon and kicked the shit out of them, and they were winning until the U.N. got involved and said "Bad Israel". Hell i rounded up 40+ friends of mine who are hard core, and we formed "The America Brigade". All of us are knowledgeable in Tae Kwundo, Judo, and Akido, and we all are marksmen and hunters by nature. We were going to go over there, and go into the parts of Lebanon where Israel couldn't. Hired mercenaries we wanted to be, but unfortunately by the time that we got things set up the war was over. wire and do the dirty work, because we felt that the U.N. had no place to get involved with this.

Well I hope your aim is better than your martial arts, because Tae and Judo are not going to hurt anyone. No offense, but martial 'arts' result in this > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BLQjntCXz3Q
Hehe.

Though, you know, the mercenary idea isn't bad, but given the political climate today, wouldn't you just be causing more problems?

@DaMulta

In my heart of hearts, no, I wouldn't want to see them bombed. A lot of people would say that because America left, they'd rally together for an attack, but if America focuses her defense, you really think the Middle East, or anyone for that matter, can mass an attack against the u.S.???

I don't.

So I'm fine with just letting them be, let them blow themselves all to hell.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 2, 2008, 10:27 PM

Yes, America is ass deep in a lot of things they shouldn't be, but while all that's going on, Americans are dying, and the AMERICAN ECONOMY is going to shit. We don't want to see anyone suffer, but America does not have a responsibility to anyone but thesmelves.
It's time to pull the plug.

Agreed, but then again we started this mess in iraq, and we should see it through till its done.

You got babies found in garbage cans, teenage mothers with four kids on welfare and no future, disabled vets dying in the gutters, kids taking guns to school, continous poverty, a rising inflation, a rising unemployment, a massive immigration issue, an overbearing income tax, a dwindling housing market...shall I go on? And you're supposed to care about some people across the ocean?

I would support the Government taking orphans and kids off the street, and then putting them into a government run military school system with housing, and when they turn 18 have them enter the military, as a form of back pay. Thus we kill many birds with one stone, Fix the unadaptive of kids, kids in the garbage, crack parents with kids on welfare.

In either case a draft will help straightening out the kids of today. Not to mention cut down on health care costs because the draft would reduce obesity in children.

Well I hope your aim is better than your martial arts, because Tae and Judo are not going to hurt anyone. No offense, but martial 'arts' result in this > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BLQjntCXz3Q
Hehe.

All tae and Judo have more to do with disarming, and throwing then actual H2H. Akido is H2H. I learned Judo and Akido because they go hand in hand. Judo teaches you to flow with the enemies movementum, and in the case of self defense it works, i can throw off a knife attack and then use Akido to disarm the person and use the knife against him if needed.

Though, you know, the mercenary idea isn't bad, but given the political climate today, wouldn't you just be causing more problems?

Well, we were all gun ho about it at the time, because we felt that Israel was doing the right thing, and that the UN was shutting them down because Israel was being to "forceful".

Personally, it doesn't matter, the Middle east was full of savages like the terrorist 100 years ago, and 100 years from now that's all that will exist, and they an all destroy themselves for all i care. The only reason the middle east is so important is because of oil, and 100 years from now when we drive on electric and not gas, those head chopping savages will be left in the dust.

farlex85

Nov 3, 2008, 12:46 AM

Agreed, but then again we started this mess in iraq, and we should see it through till its done.

I would support the Government taking orphans and kids off the street, and then putting them into a government run military school system with housing, and when they turn 18 have them enter the military, as a form of back pay. Thus we kill many birds with one stone, Fix the unadaptive of kids, kids in the garbage, crack parents with kids on welfare.

In either case a draft will help straightening out the kids of today. Not to mention cut down on health care costs because the draft would reduce obesity in children.

All tae and Judo have more to do with disarming, and throwing then actual H2H. Akido is H2H. I learned Judo and Akido because they go hand in hand. Judo teaches you to flow with the enemies movementum, and in the case of self defense it works, i can throw off a knife attack and then use Akido to disarm the person and use the knife against him if needed.

Well, we were all gun ho about it at the time, because we felt that Israel was doing the right thing, and that the UN was shutting them down because Israel was being to "forceful".

Personally, it doesn't matter, the Middle east was full of savages like the terrorist 100 years ago, and 100 years from now that's all that will exist, and they an all destroy themselves for all i care. The only reason the middle east is so important is because of oil, and 100 years from now when we drive on electric and not gas, those head chopping savages will be left in the dust.

I'm curious as to what exactly is the condition that will validate the Iraq war as "won." I keep seeing people arguing we should finish the war and such, but no one seems to know what that really means. And the draft would not at all work w/ a war like this. You can't simply have a draft when half of the country (or more than half) disagrees w/ the war. It may have worked immediately after 9/11, but I think you've played too many video games. :D You can't simply force millions into battle for your ideals, at least it's harder to get away w/ these days.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 3, 2008, 01:15 AM

I'm curious as to what exactly is the condition that will validate the Iraq war as "won." I keep seeing people arguing we should finish the war and such, but no one seems to know what that really means. And the draft would not at all work w/ a war like this. You can't simply have a draft when half of the country (or more than half) disagrees w/ the war. It may have worked immediately after 9/11, but I think you've played too many video games. :D You can't simply force millions into battle for your ideals, at least it's harder to get away w/ these days.

Well, i agree, at this point a draft won't fix this issue, nor would it work at thus point.

Winning the war is seeing a stable country and then pulling out. A stable country where the Iraqi people can govern, and protect themselves from Terrorist and terror bombings. That is what i call a successful Police Action, IMO.

SK-1

Nov 3, 2008, 01:16 AM

My war talk is now over.

:(no more orbiting space stations with big-ol nuke-missiles :(

farlex85

Nov 3, 2008, 01:31 AM

Well, i agree, at this point a draft won't fix this issue, nor would it work at thus point.

Winning the war is seeing a stable country and then pulling out. A stable country where the Iraqi people can govern, and protect themselves from Terrorist and terror bombings. That is what i call a successful Police Action, IMO.

Yeah I mean stability is the goal, I fear it's a bit abstract though, b/c as you said they have been fighting for hundreds of years and will continue fighting for 100 more. It could take decades for Iraq to recuperate the damage caused from the war, and even then, terrorist attacks will still happen. Rebuild for sure, but simply stationing troops and and fighting an endless battle won't likely do much good. Diplomacy and economics are needed here, not just armed forces.

pepsi71ocean

Nov 3, 2008, 01:48 AM

Yeah I mean stability is the goal, I fear it's a bit abstract though, b/c as you said they have been fighting for hundreds of years and will continue fighting for 100 more. It could take decades for Iraq to recuperate the damage caused from the war, and even then, terrorist attacks will still happen. Rebuild for sure, but simply stationing troops and and fighting an endless battle won't likely do much good. Diplomacy and economics are needed here, not just armed forces.

Oh, i must have not clarified that right. I meant 100 years ago the west never even knew the Middle East was anything, all that it was it was was a Colony of Britain. Oil had nothing to do with the middle east, until the 1930's. And what I'm saying is 100 years from now, the middle east will be nothing but sand and bones. The world will move on from Oil, and then the middle east will not longer be important. And so economic instability will rock the middle east, and they then can turn back to savages and fight for what ever.

EDIT:The three factions of Islam have been fighting since the death of the first prophet. And that has been about 1,500 years. This will continue on until the end of time, part of the reason that this is going on is because no two factions can agree with anything from ruling government, to promoting laws. And so only Dictatorships flourish in the middle east, because one faction is in control.

Diplomacy and economics will help promote growth, while armed force will promote stability, which indirectly helps promote growth. Its a hand in hand process basically.

farlex85

Nov 3, 2008, 01:57 AM

Oh, i must have not clarified that right. I meant 100 years ago the west never even knew the Middle East was anything, all that it was it was was a Colony of Britain. Oil had nothing to do with the middle east, until the 1930's. And what I'm saying is 100 years from now, the middle east will be nothing but sand and bones. The world will move on from Oil, and then the middle east will not longer be important. And so economic instability will rock the middle east, and they then can turn back to savages and fight for what ever.

EDIT:The three factions of Islam have been fighting since the death of the first prophet. And that has been about 1,500 years. This will continue on until the end of time, part of the reason that this is going on is because no two factions can agree with anything from ruling government, to promoting laws. And so only Dictatorships flourish in the middle east, because one faction is in control.

Diplomacy and economics will help promote growth, while armed force will promote stability, which indirectly helps promote growth. Its a hand in hand process basically.

I could have just misunderstood. My point is to attempt nation building in an area as unstable as the middle east, where terrorism is a given, and to pour as much resources as we have into a sledgehammer for an indeterminate period of time is just not going to work imo. A scalpel (less expensive, diplomacy) properly used perhaps could, if not then we should leave the damn rock alone. Staying until it's "over" (although in a way it may not be for a long, long time) could significantly cripple our nation, in more ways than one.

btarunr

Nov 3, 2008, 01:59 AM

I think we're through with this war talk. By the way, when do results come out?

pepsi71ocean

Nov 3, 2008, 02:00 AM

I think we're through with this war talk. By the way, when do results come out?

Results?

farlex85

Nov 3, 2008, 02:01 AM

I think we're through with this war talk. By the way, when do results come out?

Why are we through w/ the war talk? We aren't through w/ the war. :D If all goes as planned late Tuesday (late in the US, early Wed over there) should have pretty much wrapped up.

Triprift

Nov 3, 2008, 02:05 AM

pepsi71ocean

Nov 3, 2008, 02:10 AM

Thats one thing ive never understood with humanity pretty much all the conflicts in the world happen because its always been like that. The Middle East, Northern Ireland, America with other countries and many other conflicts. No one seems to say hey this is pointless why dont we stop its just insane to me. Then again i do live in Oz were all we can do is turn on our tellies and wach the insanity unfold on tv during the new reports and be so thankful i live where i am.

I know what you mean, its the same with me and the Presidential Elections.

But you can't always blame America, you must blame Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Prussia, ROME, CHINA, Japan, almost every country has gone through an aggressive stage in the history of its lineage. Its just that now is Americas turn, so there is nothing that can be done about that.

DaMulta

Nov 3, 2008, 02:11 AM

:(no more orbiting space stations with big-ol nuke-missiles :(

They want PALiT Guy as President now, and me as VP

My plan could not see the light of day now:shadedshu

Everyone should elect me as President of the United States.

I see no need to have any bases around the world.

I would bring everyone home, from every country. If we wanted to trade with you we would go by your rules. If you start to kill everyone around your country we will nuke your country off the planet.

Then I would start a Military Space program. All wars from us would come from space. If we didn't like what you were doing we would just bomb you. We would set a military base on the moon to conduct watches on the rest of the world, and Military satellites that could shoot down any thing in the sky.

The Military Space program would share all programs that would help with space flight.

For America to go green every highway in America would be converted into solar panels. Then sell those parts off to private electric company's to maintain them. All roofs of all new houses would be required to be solar panels, everyone else in America would get a tax write off for having them installed guaranteed for 10 years.

All cars made 5 years from now must only be in electrical design.

Then I would release everyone from jail for non violent crimes on drugs and pardon everyone. If it was added to another crime, your time would be cut for the other reasons. I would then tell all the police and states of America that I would pardon everyone they arrested for it, and would ask congress to pass a bill letting people do what they want with them selfs. All non violent crimes would then be turned down to 5 years max.

We would save billions.

I would then take all that money and place it into the school systems. After graduation, all students would have to go work with the Military for 2 years without pay(given 5 grand when they finished) in no war zones, the united states would provide them with what ever they needed. Then They would be set lose to go to college, go to work, or join the military.

A illegal immigrant caught inside the united states would be forced to join the united states military for 4 years, and then given a choice to stay in the military or go to school. All kids with them would live on base with them and go to military schools for there time there.

lol just joking, or am I ......lol
:toast:

----
Ok everyone knows that I'm against the war in Iraq(or should know that), but I do go along with it. There are some of reasons why I do go along with it.

Pulling up what I posted so I don't look like a total ass about not caring about those people.......I do, but they are not us and are very different than us.
Weapons of mass destruction, was what they said. They could of had them, and they could still be there buried in the desert. Now Saddam Hussein was a crazy ruler if you ever stop and read about what he and his family did while they were in control it will make you sick to your stomach. From rapping women and filming to sending it back to their family for them to see, to throwing babies against the wall. The fact that on his kids birthdays they got to go to a prison and kill someone for their birthday present. He even committed genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

The list can go on and on, from the first day that he came into power, and hung everyone in the public streets that was power that was not with him.

They say that his kids were even worse, and when they would come into power it would of been even crazier.

But, their world over there is different that the Eu or us the west. They hate one another, and have been killing each other for centuries. It's bad to say it, at least for me it is, but maybe those people needed to be ruled with fear to keep them under control. During his rule of power did they have people driving around blowing themselves up in car bombs, going to neighbor hoods, and then beheading people because of their religion. In a crazy way, he might of kept them all under control from doing crazy things to one another by treating them the way that he did. Of course people suffered because of that, but did it keep most people under control and in some form of peace? I don't really know....I think that it's a hard thing to talk about.

OK Palin

What you need to understand is that, when it comes to military and paramilitary operations, the American public is almost completely in the dark and don't know anything about what's going on.

I say again, it all comes back to education. more information about US driven paramilitary operations during the 70's is being disclosed every day. But it takes time for this information to get into the education system and for people to find out it's been going on. It then takes more time for those people who agree that it's wrong to then grow up, get elected into office and then refuse to approve the funds for such operations.

But that is difficult. People who get elected have to spend money to get people to elect them. When you owe someone a debt it needs to be repaid. It takes great courage to stand up to someone you owe and tell them you will not do something for them when they ask. Especially if they can leverage you with something you've done that isn't good or threaten you or your family in some way.

I think it's a good idea to have term limitations for the President. While he may not have much real power, he does have the ability to be "persuasive" in many ways. Term limitations prevent us, by law, from finding ourselves with effectively a dictator or king.

I also think we should have term limitations for Senate members. Originally members of the Senate just were wealthy folks who could afford to take a couple years off their normal jobs and spend a few in the service of the government. Lately it's turned into people being a lawyer for a few years and then moving into politics permanently and never having done an honest day's work in their lives.

That's the biggest reason I like Palin for VP. She doesn't have a lot of experience at the "political" game and i think she will just run around doing what she thinks is right. We need that kind of simple thinking without undue influence from small interest groups or large corporations.

We need to strike some kind of balance in all this.

The only time I have really looked into her was her debate she had with Biden. This is how I feel about her.

Biden CLEARLY won this. He answered every question, while Plain skipped just about everyone. How many times did she repeat the same thing about taxes? two many to count.

McCain on wallstreet voting for less and less deregulation. When Obama seen this coming two years ago and said something needed to be done. Now all McCains adds push the buck to Obama when in fact Obama was for regulation that McCain wants now.

Biden clearly new whats going on in all the wars. And who to go after.

Palin was all about oil and drill drill drill. It will take 10 years to get that oil, and it's only a 3 year supply. In ten years if we focused all our attention on wind farms and other sources of energy we would not even need that oil. There's plenty now. On clean coal, Biden clearly pointed out that was he was talking about was taken out of context. Clean coal could be the way to the future. We can make jet fuel, diesel out of that stuff it just needs to be worked on as gasoline has to burn cleaner. To top it off we have mountains of coal. It would be a very wise thing to go after instead of more oil.

She said that he kept looking at the past, but every time he did that he gave the answer of what he voted for. Then everything that he was against and predicted came true in a bad way. He was not just saying the past but giving a way to fix it, or how it should of been done. Plain during many of these times, didn't respond back to him, but went back to her taxes taxes taxes statements. I loled every time she did it, because clearly she had no idea on what he was even talking about.

I love how she says cut cut cut taxes when we are going into a huge dept. It's going to take my lifetime, and my sons just to pay it off. It's a have to thing, and yes Palin it's patriotic to help your country pay for the things that help us and the world. Money does not grow on trees. And yes Palin people that make over 250k a year would not be hurting if they had to pay a little more. It has to be paid one day, before we go bankrupt and I have to take a wheel barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread.

She kept saying the maverick over and over, I loved when Bidin corrected her on why he is not one. It's just a spin on the truth.

At one point she made a statement about Obama raising taxes on a bill, when McCain voted yes on the same bill. He clearly knows McCain better than she does.

And lets be honest is Pakistan or Iran shot off a nuke. They would only get a few off, before they were wiped off the planet. From my understanding we could wipe Russia out with just 4 bombs.

To me she should she has no business running for Vp of the United States of America. Even more so that McCain could drop dead at any given moment and she would become President. I don't even want to think about that.

The biggest thing I myself walked away from watching this was. That McCain and Bush are the same. Biden made that point very very very clear. So if you take a look at were we are now, and the world hating us, if McCain wins it's just going to continue.
And then there is this

So Palin has more experience because she was in this small towns(6000 people) Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996 and mayor from 1996 to 2002 dealing with city issues Not world issues(I keep seeing on t/v don't really know that that city went 2 million in dept with her in control but a lot of citys do that), and the Gov for not even 2 years yet(in Nov it will be 2 years).

No I don't live there, but Alaska has so much oil that it pays people to live there from my understanding. Of course they are going to be able to cut taxes for it citizens they are a rich state. When most states in the united states have to borrow money every year, or have a balanced budget. I think Alaska is almost a different country that the rest of America, it's isolated IMO and not the same as the rest of the us. Well yes and no as the same.
I should/could look into her more. If she does become VP I will do so.

This thread is so good to just look back and read. There is so much information here to learn, and change your views on certain issues if you take the time and read this whole thread....