Obama to tear apart the country

[The12lber]

no the short version is that what is going on now pales in comapirison to the past period.



Bush would have gotten flames if he didn't do anything, and would have gotten flamed (as he did) for doing something, its a lose lose situtation.

About what? Iraq? His Administration created the hype leading up to the war, so no, not really.




Between this and the other threads i've seen from you recently, you post some retarded ****
Alright big guy. Don't provide examples or anything, just slander me, its what smart people do.

Since 1960, pre-emptive wars for resources, overthrow of Democratically elected governments (HELLO IRAN)... for resources, support of Dictatorial Governments (unsurprisingly, usually for resources as well as strategic influence), indefinite detention, torture at home and torture abroad (extraordinary rendition), heavily unregulated programs of assassination (Phoenix Program lolz), etc.

We've still got some pretty heavy hitting **** going on. Try again.

As a side note, you are the one posting retarded **** for being totally misinformed, not me. The idea that the Iraq situation just presented itself and Bush acted decisively is major lolz. Former Bush DoD officials have said themselves they pressed the issue. They even admitted it on the ****ing Daily Show. Do you get your cue cards from Cheney or something? At least he can spell.

[BanginJimmy]

What pre-emptive war for resources? I know we have supplied several groups in proxy wars against anti-american countries. That would include Iran, Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam.

[TopSpeedInc]

The guy wants to charge 30 percent on all capital gains. F that, if I sell my house and make 100k profit I will be damned if I am giving the government 30k.


Doug

[The12lber]

What pre-emptive war for resources?
How about Iraq? Ever read the papers of the Project for the New American Century? It outlines a scenario a lot like what occurred in Iraq. Control middle eastern countries, control the oil, deny other countries the petroleum to hinder economic growth and allow America to maintain world economic dominance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Lots of Bush administration members were also members of the Project for the New American Century.
I know we have supplied several groups in proxy wars against anti-american countries. That would include Iran, Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam.
We never supplied anyone with weapons to fight the Chinese unless you count a couple of Tibetans being in the employ of the CIA, and throughout the Cold War they could probably be considered conversely as much Ally as Enemy after the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s.

More over, I hope nobody is dumb enough to mistake China for an enemy now. Aside from the fact that no other nation's armed forces even approach the capabilities required to challenge the total dominance the United States can produce, they're our biggest trading partner.

Vietnam was also not "Anti-American" - The Vietnamese, North and South respectively, were fighting to maintain their own sovereignty and reunite the nation under one Government.

Iran is an interesting case - no doubt they were and to some degree still are anti-American - don't mistake the words of Ahmadinejad for the feelings of the populace, the younger generation is very progressive and the President is in fact very unpopular and not in charge of foreign policy- but were they so much of a threat that it warranted arming Iraq with biological and chemical weapons? Which were later employed against U.S troops (the irony here is we were also arming Iran, see Iran-Contra) Yes, U.S. troops were exposed to chemical weapons during the Gulf War through direct or indirect deployment.

Early warning chemical detectors went off nearly 18,000 individual times during the Gulf War, rendering them useless because of providing too many false positives. Troops were therefore exposed to trace levels of chemical weapons, producing what's known today as Gulf War syndrome, symptoms of which are high incidences of cancer and birth defects in offspring. This is commonly blamed on DU, this is inccorect, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea DU has this effect on humans. Mustard Gas, however, is well documented in medical literature as being a highly mutagenic/carcinogenic compound.

It would be foolish to say it was Ronald Reagan's fault this happened, but his irresponsible facilitiation of chemical weapons proliferation is certainly related to the health problems of hundreds of thousands of U.S. and British troops and their children.

[tony]

The guy wants to charge 30 percent on all capital gains. F that, if I sell my house and make 100k profit I will be damned if I am giving the government 30k.


Doug

I am in completely agreeable with that, raising capital gains has an adverse effect on revenues.. lowering it actually encourages investment and usually brings in more tax revenue.

[The12lber]

I am in completely agreeable with that, raising capital gains has an adverse effect on revenues.. lowering it actually encourages investment and usually brings in more tax revenue.
Agreed. I'm honestly flabbergasted Obama is dumb enough to say he would do this, especially considering he apparently sees the fallacies of the proposed gas-tax holiday.

Pandering rhetoric only perhaps? I don't know. Personally, after the FISA incident, I think he's a pretty big douchebag.

Less of a douchebag than McCain, but definitely still on my **** list.

[BanginJimmy]

We never supplied anyone with weapons to fight the Chinese

How about the S. Koreans? In Vietnam we dealt with alot of Soviet influance.


More over, I hope nobody is dumb enough to mistake China for an enemy now. Aside from the fact that no other nation's armed forces even approach the capabilities required to challenge the total dominance the United States can produce, they're our biggest trading partner.

China is absolutely an ememy. Not only have they said they would attack US intrests in Asia if we were to support Taiwan, but they have passed a law to that effect. Their military is about a decade behind us as far as technology goes. Their Navy is a joke and their army is just a mass on conscripts. There are alot of them, but they really dont pose much of a military threat to us. Their Airforce is large and they do have modern weapons thanks to the good ole USA.


Vietnam was also not "Anti-American" - The Vietnamese, North and South respectively, were fighting to maintain their own sovereignty and reunite the nation under one Government.'

Actually Soviet backed communists invaded the democratic south. The US was asked by the french for help and we went in slowly at first and continually increased in numbers until 1968.

[The12lber]

How about the S. Koreans? In Vietnam we dealt with alot of Soviet influance.

China became involved in the conflict on the side of North Korea and we fought them as well. We weren't supplying South Korea with weapons to destabilize China.

In regards to the Soviet Union, I was under the impression you were talking about Afghanistan. There was Soviet Influence, yes, but that doesn't really mean we were arming proxies against them - we were arming proxies against their proxies (and fighting said proxies with our own troops).

China is absolutely an ememy. Not only have they said they would attack US intrests in Asia if we were to support Taiwan, but they have passed a law to that effect.
Well, that would make sense. Taiwan is actually called the "Republic of China", how do you think China feels about that? That it's a chinese problem. It would seem logical that if we intervened in a conflict on the behalf of the Taiwanese that we would be enemies to China seeing as how, you know, it would be an armed conflict.

They're not our enemy because they said if we attack them on behalf of Taiwan they'd attack us back. Use your brain.
Their military is about a decade behind us as far as technology goes.
Farther than that.
Their Navy is a joke and their army is just a mass on conscripts. There are alot of them, but they really dont pose much of a military threat to us. Their Airforce is large and they do have modern weapons thanks to the good ole USA.
Actually, most of their military technology comes from collaborative efforts with Russia and China's biggest arms dealer, Israel.

Russia will probably find this to be unfortuitous when China claims Russia's resources in 30 years via armed conflict after becoming tired of subsidizing its resource needs to other nations.

Actually Soviet backed communists invaded the democratic south. The US was asked by the french for help and we went in slowly at first and continually increased in numbers until 1968.
Which is actually in total agreement with what I said. You really showed me by restating what I said in more words.

Regardless, it demonstrates the fact that it wasn't an issue of Vietnam being "anti-american" pretty clearly.


End of story

[nismo_b14]

bunch of haters, obama 08!

[BanginJimmy]

China became involved in the conflict on the side of North Korea and we fought them as well. We weren't supplying South Korea with weapons to destabilize China.

no we were not trying to destabalize anyone in Korea, nor were we in Vietnam. In both cases though we supplied weapons to the noncommunist side before we sent troops in large numbers.


In regards to the Soviet Union, I was under the impression you were talking about Afghanistan. There was Soviet Influence, yes, but that doesn't really mean we were arming proxies against them - we were arming proxies against their proxies (and fighting said proxies with our own troops).

In Afghanistan we supplied the mujihideen against the soviet union. That is us fighting a proxy war.



Well, that would make sense. Taiwan is actually called the "Republic of China", how do you think China feels about that? That it's a chinese problem. It would seem logical that if we intervened in a conflict on the behalf of the Taiwanese that we would be enemies to China seeing as how, you know, it would be an armed conflict.

Taiwan (The Republic of China) has a democraticly elected govt and its no secret that they have been working on sucession for years. If mainland China(Peoples Republic of China) was to invade a democratic country then the US would continue to do what it has done since the end of WWII and that is to fight the spread of communism.


They're not our enemy because they said if we attack them on behalf of Taiwan they'd attack us back. Use your brain.

It doesnt even need to be militarily that we support Taiwan. If the US was to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation the law China passed would allow their govt to attack US intrests.


Farther than that.

in same areas yes, in some no. Their sub force is well behind ours. Their army is very low tech, but it is gaining quickly. Their airforce on the other hand is top notch. They have top flight fighters in the Su-34 I believe it is, and they have alot of them. Their surface to air missle systems are also some of the best in the world thanks to the French.


Russia will probably find this to be unfortuitous when China claims Russia's resources in 30 years via armed conflict after becoming tired of subsidizing its resource needs to other nations.

I agree with you on this. China desperatly needs room and natural resources. Russia has tons of both that are not ebing used in Siberia. The weather kind of sucks there, but thats not the main concern.

[BanginJimmy]

bunch of haters, obama 08!


yes I do hate higher taxes and more govt intrusion into my life.

[The12lber]

no we were not trying to destabalize anyone in Korea, nor were we in Vietnam. In both cases though we supplied weapons to the noncommunist side before we sent troops in large numbers.

Yeah, and that was exactly my point.

In Afghanistan we supplied the mujihideen against the soviet union. That is us fighting a proxy war.

Isn't that exactly what I intimated?


Taiwan (The Republic of China) has a democraticly elected govt and its no secret that they have been working on sucession for years. If mainland China(Peoples Republic of China) was to invade a democratic country then the US would continue to do what it has done since the end of WWII and that is to fight the spread of communism.

Obviously, its worth risking total nuclear armageddon to save a widely agreed to be corrupt government at the expense of American lives. Obviously.

If China invades, we will not step in. Count on it.



in same areas yes, in some no. Their sub force is well behind ours. Their army is very low tech, but it is gaining quickly. Their airforce on the other hand is top notch. They have top flight fighters in the Su-34 I believe it is, and they have alot of them. Their surface to air missle systems are also some of the best in the world thanks to the French.

The power of our stealth technology totally negates any said advantages. Thousands of combat sorties against highly modern and concentrated anti-aircraft systems, only one combat loss.



I agree with you on this. China desperatly needs room and natural resources. Russia has tons of both that are not ebing used in Siberia. The weather kind of sucks there, but thats not the main concern.


Its inevitable. And China will crush Russia like a bug.

[The12lber]

yes I do hate higher taxes and more govt intrusion into my life.

Any government likes more intrusion in your life, Democrat Republican etc. Obama voted for the new FISA bill, care to guess if McCain did? I'm willing to bet he did, if he was there for the vote that is.

[4DRGSR]

It really doesn't matter who you vote for. Voting= picking the lessor of two evils. Either way, money is going to sway all decisions made in washington, trust me, i just left there, and i worked for the govt. I have seen the evil of man come out more than once, all the while making money under the table.

[EJ25RUN]

I want to start a thread,

Obama's Flip Flop of the day:

[BanginJimmy]

Any government likes more intrusion in your life, Democrat Republican etc. Obama voted for the new FISA bill, care to guess if McCain did? I'm willing to bet he did, if he was there for the vote that is.

I agree with both of these canidates, but true conservatives do not. McCain is far from a conservative.

[The12lber]

I agree with both of these canidates, but true conservatives do not. McCain is far from a conservative.

I think Obama's a pretty big douchebag for support FISA - something that clearly violates the constitution, you know, the club handbook that the government frequently doesn't follow despite all laws having to adhere to it. More over, he said he wouldn't - and then did.

McCain, as well as being far from a conservative, is an even larger douchebag. Aside from being totally incompetent as a policy maker and being totally misinformed of the world around (thought Czcechoslovakia was still in existence, this nation in fact disintegrated in 1992, didn't know who Iran's top executive was and when he was corrected by a reporter told the reporter he was wrong, etc), the whole Veteran thing he commonly falls back on makes me laugh. If crashing a few aircraft (one time, he actually flew one through some power lines in Spain), flying a handful of combat sorites and being held captive - while in the process making countless anti-American statements - qualifies you to be president, I think my experience playing Command and Conquer is legit too.

[BanginJimmy]

I think Obama's a pretty big douchebag for support FISA - something that clearly violates the constitution, you know, the club handbook that the government frequently doesn't follow despite all laws having to adhere to it. More over, he said he wouldn't - and then did.

McCain, as well as being far from a conservative, is an even larger douchebag. Aside from being totally incompetent as a policy maker and being totally misinformed of the world around (thought Czcechoslovakia was still in existence, this nation in fact disintegrated in 1992, didn't know who Iran's top executive was and when he was corrected by a reporter told the reporter he was wrong, etc), the whole Veteran thing he commonly falls back on makes me laugh. If crashing a few aircraft (one time, he actually flew one through some power lines in Spain), flying a handful of combat sorites and being held captive - while in the process making countless anti-American statements - qualifies you to be president, I think my experience playing Command and Conquer is legit too.


I think you ahve summed things up pretty nicely. My vote will still go for McCain though because of the facts that he A. Supports staying in Iraq to finish the job. And B. he wont raise taxes nearly as much as Obama will.

[The12lber]

Between this and the other threads i've seen from you recently, you post some retarded ****

A few days after the fact, I'm disappointed that you were bold enough to in less words call me a retard but not quite bold enough to back it up with a developed argument.

Apparently you can be enough of a ***** to be afraid on the internet. :crazy:

[Lucky DAWG]

A few days after the fact, I'm disappointed that you were bold enough to in less words call me a retard but not quite bold enough to back it up with a developed argument.

Apparently you can be enough of a ***** to be afraid on the internet. :crazy:



I'm just **** talking man, its a forum :cheers:



We will all have different views when it comes to politics, you will never know until it happens.

[R3RUN]

I'm sorry, I forgot that all you have to do to be liberal is denounce Bush and all you have to do to be conservative is agree with him. My bad smart guy :_(

Unfortunately, I am not as smart as you to only concern myself with these things. I actually looked at the details because I am, clearly, retarded.

Fox news mostly plays host to xenophobia, homophobia, ethnocentricity, undisquised racism, warmongering, proponents of widening surveillance with diminishing civil rights, douchebags who insist its "enhanced interrogation" - not torture- and an occassional rich white guy who explains that the super rich and corporations turning record profits still have it just as bad as you. This isn't actually conservatism. This is idiocy with a neo-conservative (the inbred fourth cousin's once removed roommate of true conservatism) twist.

But seriously - no sarcasm - you obviously have no understanding of politics or what conservatism/liberalism are and lack anything greater than superficial understanding of what you see.
Wow, I'm digging this post up but whatever.

Right, Fox is still conservative and CNN is still liberal. Call Fox whatever you need to distance them but it doesn't change their political agenda. Pointing out the obvious has nothing to do do with my understanding of politics or my intelligence level. Sorry if I didn't feel like elaborating on a well known fact. To be honest I don't like either, they both lie to me from the minute I turn on the TV telling me they are "fair" or "balanced", its all bull****.

Politics in this country is pretty basic. It's a competition of who can kiss the most ass without getting **** on their face.

[The12lber]

Wow, I'm digging this post up but whatever.

Right, Fox is still conservative and CNN is still liberal.
You're basing this on what the popular perception of conservatism is, not what actual conservative political philosophy in the United States is about. What Fox News pushes is actually Neo-Conservatism with a healthy dose of non politically alligned idiocy, it has a lot more in common with leftist Trotskyism than Conservatism/the Republican party pre-Reagan. I even said this before... in the post you quoted. Fox News just isn't conservative.

I can't honestly say I've seen enough of CNN to form a very solid opinion, but what I've seen on there is quite centrist, toothless and in the vein of Fox News generally just pro-government fluff.

[BanginJimmy]

I can't honestly say I've seen enough of CNN to form a very solid opinion, but what I've seen on there is quite centrist, toothless and in the vein of Fox News generally just pro-government fluff.


Well at leat you sid you dont want much CNN because your opinion is wholely wrong. They are most definately liberal, just watch the coverage of Obama and then watch coverage of McCain, its obviously swayed towards Obama.

[Lucky DAWG]

The more and more i think about it, i'm pretty nervous Obama is going to win.

I see more and more stickers for him everywhere i go and more people jumping on the wagon.

This isn't meant to be racist, but i bet you minority voters will come out of the woodworks to vote for him who have either not voted out of apathy in the past or because they had jobs and would needed the money instead of the voting break

[BanginJimmy]

most of those 'woodwork' voters will goto Obama and if he wins the wife and I will be quitting our jobs and applying for welfare as we will bring home more money.

[Lucky DAWG]

most of those 'woodwork' voters will goto Obama and if he wins the wife and I will be quitting our jobs and applying for welfare as we will bring home more money.



thats what i just said :thinking:

[metalman]

yes I do hate higher taxes and more govt intrusion into my life.

I hate those things too.

Dems = Higher taxes, less financial freedom
GOP = More Govt, less freedom & liberty

I vote none of the above. :)

[The12lber]

most of those 'woodwork' voters will goto Obama and if he wins the wife and I will be quitting our jobs and applying for welfare as we will bring home more money.
This is serious hyperbole.

[The12lber]

Well at leat you sid you dont want much CNN because your opinion is wholely wrong. They are most definately liberal, just watch the coverage of Obama and then watch coverage of McCain, its obviously swayed towards Obama.
Although both are Dbags, there's a lot more good things to be said about Obama, so that might explain the news coverage. Also, I vote no to war in Iran/no to another President who's clearly a moron so I'm not voting for McCain.

[Mestizo]

my father told me the other day(he heard this in the news or radio or something)
by the end of this year and beginning of next year, REGULAR gas price is gonna be like $7..and i can believe that b/c i was looking at recent gas prices and i saw that it was already up to $5 w/some change..im not sure where, but the gas prices are rocketing non-stop..obama looks decent to manage but IMO we all need a new leader;no one makes them like they used to...sad...terribly sad:(

[The12lber]

my father told me the other day(he heard this in the news or radio or something)
by the end of this year and beginning of next year, REGULAR gas price is gonna be like $7..and i can believe that b/c i was looking at recent gas prices and i saw that it was already up to $5 w/some change..im not sure where, but the gas prices are rocketing non-stop..obama looks decent to manage but IMO we all need a new leader;no one makes them like they used to...sad...terribly sad:(
Whoever your dad was listening to is a dumb mother****er, much of oil's (and therefore gas') increase in price is due to speculation. The price of something growing rapidly based on speculation is called a bubble, it can only grow for so long until a price correction "pops" the bubble and all is right in the economic universe once again.

More over, you can't really pin high energy prices on <x> administration. The real problem is the condition of petro addiction the oil lobby has created in this nation over the past century or so.

[Mestizo]

well in that case we'll just wait and see what happens...
thanks for specifying

[BanginJimmy]

oil is back down to under $125. As oil prices continue to drop, the financials are going up so I think we just might make it through this foreclosure issue without any more major banks closing shop.

[Lucky DAWG]

oil is back down to under $125. As oil prices continue to drop, the financials are going up so I think we just might make it through this foreclosure issue without any more major banks closing shop.



would you say now would be a good time to invest in all of those banks that were hurting, Wamu for instance at 3$

[BanginJimmy]

well immediately after I said that, all of my bank stocks took a huge hit so I really dont know right now.

[Lucky DAWG]

well immediately after I said that, all of my bank stocks took a huge hit so I really dont know right now.



They did an experiment a few years ago where they put a bunch of papers with stock symbols in a cage with a monkey. The monkey would take the papers from side to side, one side being "buy them", the other being "don't buy them". They basically left all stock options to the monkey.



A group of 100 professional traders from big firms lined up against the monkey and after a 30 day period, they monkey made more money then half of them... :lmfao:




Shows you what a guessing game the market is...

[Arm&hammer]

I highly doubt he can **** up the country or divide it anymore than it already is.

agree with 100%
i vote democrat this year.

[BanginJimmy]

agree with 100%
i vote democrat this year.


you would be suprised how bad someone with that much power can screw things up. This is especially true because he will have a very cooperative congress. If he gets half of the programs and policies passed that he wants it will take generations to fix 4 years of his screwups.

[Spektrewing386]

arnt we dealing with that situation right now with the current president? lol

[BanginJimmy]

not at all.

[twinj]

I highly doubt he can **** up the country or divide it anymore than it already is.
QFT

[The12lber]

not at all.
Actually, his administration's policies alone managed to turn the largest budget surplus ever into the largest deficit ever (Republican = Fiscal Responsibility, though, obv), facilitated increased divergence of the already highly divergent wealth disparity (regressive tax cuts) and contributed to the dollar's slide downwards in terms of international currency exchange values (all that borrowing, mostly for the war, supply and demand actually applies to the value of currency as well) and has generally just ****ed up. A lot. I could go on for a while.

[BanginJimmy]

war is expensive, we knew that going in. During WWII there were war bonds, they arent doing that now so the govt has to raise the money another way.

That budget surplus also resulted in lessened military and intelligence capabilities. Personally I would rather have top notch intel and military than a budget surplus.

And dont get into taxes if you support Obama, his tax plan will make this downturn look like a booming economy. The US will wish it was only as bad as the great depression. Taking more money out of people's pockets is not the way to turn the economy, putting more money into people's pockets will.

[The12lber]

war is expensive, we knew that going in. During WWII there were war bonds, they arent doing that now so the govt has to raise the money another way.
Yeah, it is, but why sacrifice the expense for something that just wasn't a threat. Seriously, Iraq a national security threat to the United States in 2003? lawlerskates

And as a side note, we were lied to about that going in. The administration said it would take a few weeks or months, cost 50-60 billion dollars and that the oil would recoup all losses. Not to mention that whole lying about the WMDs thing.

You can't tell me they didn't know, either. Cheney infamously explained post 1991 Gulf War why an invasion of Iraq would be a disaster.

The weak dollar is doing some some serious damage to the economy in the form of increasingly expensive energy.

That budget surplus also resulted in lessened military and intelligence capabilities. Personally I would rather have top notch intel and military than a budget surplus.

There's no excuse to run in a budget deficit, we have a 13 trillion dollar economy, we can afford top notch everything without debt. Also, our military and intelligence spending is huge. Unnecessarily huge. Military expenses were 630 billion dollars in 2007. The United States alone does half of the world's defense spending.

More over, simply throwing money at the intelligence community doesn't necessarily improve its quality. Pre-9/11 a hundred and one indiotic gaffes allowed the terrorists to slip through the cracks. You need to have intelligent people in intelligence, not highly paid buffoons.

I'm betting that never would have happened with Mossad, and they're much smaller than our intelligence services.

And dont get into taxes if you support Obama, his tax plan will make this downturn look like a booming economy. The US will wish it was only as bad as the great depression. Taking more money out of people's pockets is not the way to turn the economy, putting more money into people's pockets will.
The economy would survive and indeed thrive in a climate of higher taxes. If I'm not mistaken, Clinton's administration was marked by much more positive economic conditions than Bush's.

[BanginJimmy]

Yeah, it is, but why sacrifice the expense for something that just wasn't a threat. Seriously, Iraq a national security threat to the United States in 2003? lawlerskates

What about the 500+ tons of yellow cake was found in Iraq in 04 and just recently moved to Canada?


And as a side note, we were lied to about that going in. The administration said it would take a few weeks or months, cost 50-60 billion dollars and that the oil would recoup all losses.

So you are trying to tell me that a combat plan didnt go off exactly as planned? I just cant believe that would ever happen. Oh and that few weeks thing was the combat portion, the administration knew before going in that we were going to be there longer than a few weeks.


Not to mention that whole lying about the WMDs thing.

While they werent exactly wrong, they werent right either. After Clinton gutted the intelligence community its no wonder that we got some bad intell.



The weak dollar is doing some some serious damage to the economy in the form of increasingly expensive energy.

Is that why oil has been dropping since Bush repealed the Presidential ban on drilling? Sounds to me more like speculation got out of hand and drove up the costs of oil.


There's no excuse to run in a budget deficit, we have a 13 trillion dollar economy, we can afford top notch everything without debt.

I agree, the first place to cut from the budget though should be money for nothing programs. Changes such as no more money for more babies, time limits, actual meaningful oversight would cut a HUGE portion of the budget out.


Also, our military and intelligence spending is huge. Unnecessarily huge. Military expenses were 630 billion dollars in 2007.

Money MUCH better spent than on entitlement programs. I dont there is could possibly be an unnesessary expendature when it comes to protecting this country and its foreign intrests.


Military expenses were 630 billion dollars in 2007. The United States alone does half of the world's defense spending.

Look at operational spending only and it changes things. The US has the highest paid military in the world and thats a huge portion of the budget. Not to mention R&D which most other countries dont do.

More on that, the US is not even close to half of defense spending worldwide. I'm willing to bet that China is spending every bit what we are and they are paying their troops about 10% of what ours are receiving. Dont both quoting numbers published by the Chinese because everyone knows they are only a fraction of reality.



More over, simply throwing money at the intelligence community doesn't necessarily improve its quality.

I agree completely. The US needs to ween itself off of electronic intell and get back to using human intell. Actually putting people on the ground is the only way to realisticly bolster our intelligence gather capabilities.


Pre-9/11 a hundred and one indiotic gaffes allowed the terrorists to slip through the cracks. You need to have intelligent people in intelligence, not highly paid buffoons.

Again, I agree, but how intelligent of people you have means nothing when theres no real evidence of whats going to happen, where its going to happen, or when its going to happen. You need boots on the ground to do that.



The economy would survive and indeed thrive in a climate of higher taxes. If I'm not mistaken, Clinton's administration was marked by much more positive economic conditions than Bush's.

Clinton also rode 2 seperate booms during most of his presidency( housing and dot com) and was in office at the very beginning of the current downturn. Not to mention the fact that Bush has had an unpopular war, Katrina, the housing bubble, and sky rocketing oil prices to deal with.

The way to get the economy back on its feet is to leave private business alone to heal itself, and to do everything possible to keep people's money in their pocket. Giving people less money to put into the economy is not going to help the economy recover.

[GirlieZ]

---
____

[The12lber]

What about the 500+ tons of yellow cake was found in Iraq in 04 and just recently moved to Canada?

Basic chemistry will tell you that yellow cake itself is useless as fissile material. There is no form of uranium more raw than uranium oxide/yellow cake unless you count the ore, which is just uranium oxide plus other crap in a heterogenous mixture. There was no nuclear program. There hasn't even been a nuclear reactor in Iraq since the early 80s. I'm willing to bet that the Uranium Oxide's presence in the country dates back that far.

So you are trying to tell me that a combat plan didnt go off exactly as planned? I just cant believe that would ever happen. Oh and that few weeks thing was the combat portion, the administration knew before going in that we were going to be there longer than a few weeks.

We're still in the combat portion, and its cost us close to 600 billion dollars - not 60.

The combat never could have gone "as planned" and this was well known. Cheney knew it in 1991, you think he didn't know it in 2003?


While they werent exactly wrong, they werent right either. After Clinton gutted the intelligence community its no wonder that we got some bad intell.

They were completely wrong. They found nothing after the invasion in regards to WMDs or even existing weapons programs. The evidence before hand wasn't convincing. Why do you think there was so much international opposition/opposition in the UN? Because everyone loved Saddam Hussein that much, I'm sure you'll tell me.

Also, I wouldn't scapegoate this on Clinton, either. Former Bush cabinet members have stated that from the very first cabinet meetings, Bush was interested in regime change in Iraq and that Bush requested a means to make this happen. Read between the lines and the message he gave to his inner circle was this "We're going to invade Iraq - find me a way to sell it to the American public."

The intelligence community, specifically the CIA, actually had evidence supporting a no-WMD hypothesis. This was supressed.



Is that why oil has been dropping since Bush repealed the Presidential ban on drilling? Sounds to me more like speculation got out of hand and drove up the costs of oil.

While it is true Bush repealed the EXECUTIVE ban on offshore drilling, Congress has not repealed the actual law. The price drop was a result of the speculative bubble popping. Notice the price didn't really go down that far? It is true that speculation has been driving up the price to some extent, but its also a simple fact - the United States dollar is at the lowest international exchange value its ever been, which means foreign goods become more expensive comparitively for us. Do you know what is a foreign good we buy a lot of?

PETROLEUM. Every time the dollar goes down, foreign petroleum becomes more expensive and so does gas. Would you really deny it?

Its basic economics any high schooler knows and its undeniable.


I agree, the first place to cut from the budget though should be money for nothing programs. Changes such as no more money for more babies, time limits, actual meaningful oversight would cut a HUGE portion of the budget out.

Money MUCH better spent than on entitlement programs. I dont there is could possibly be an unnesessary expendature when it comes to protecting this country and its foreign intrests.

Yes, I agree. When it comes to health care for those who can't afford it or one more laser guided bomb to blow away an Iraqi, I totally think those Iraqis deserve dismemberment more than an impoverished young person deserves treatment for Leukemia or a citizen deserves diabetic insulin.

Honestly, I'm in disbelief because that is what you basically said in more words. The tiniest fraction of our Defense Spending could give every United States citizen healthcare but instead you'd rather buy a few more Joint Strike Fighters or aircraft carriers to perpetuate our empire. You honestly think we need a 600 billion dollar military to defend our borders? And if so, why are a tremendous portion of our military assets stationed around the world in the middle of ****ing nowhere in geographic relation to the US?

You are pathetic, sir.

Look at operational spending only and it changes things. The US has the highest paid military in the world and thats a huge portion of the budget. Not to mention R&D which most other countries dont do.

Alright, I don't mean to be a ****head now, but other countries not doing their own R&D? hahahahahaha. Where do you think things like the Eurofighter Typhoon, SU-47 Berkut, Tiger Chopper, Mangusta Chopper, the Fierce Dragon (new Chinese/Paki fighter), Mikoyan 1.44, Challenger Tank, Leclerc or T-95 (need I go on?) come from?

Every developed nation has a military industrial complex.

More on that, the US is not even close to half of defense spending worldwide. I'm willing to bet that China is spending every bit what we are and they are paying their troops about 10% of what ours are receiving. Dont both quoting numbers published by the Chinese because everyone knows they are only a fraction of reality.

No, we do over half of the world's defense spending. China is doing about 1/10th what we do. It would be impossible for China to match our military spending. Their economy is only half the size of ours, to match our military spending would double the proportion of defense sector spending compared to us - not sustainable.

While it is speculated China is understating its defense spending, but the even the uppermost ranges of what is basically pure speculation on the part of the DIA only put their military budget in the low 100 billion range. Still not even close to us.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

You're surprisingly uninformed in regards to this.

I agree completely. The US needs to ween itself off of electronic intell and get back to using human intell. Actually putting people on the ground is the only way to realisticly bolster our intelligence gather capabilities.

Again, I agree, but how intelligent of people you have means nothing when theres no real evidence of whats going to happen, where its going to happen, or when its going to happen. You need boots on the ground to do that.

I don't really know enough about the intelligence community to pass judgement on what they should or shouldn't be concentrating on or readjusting and you don't either. Its kind of, you know, clandestine like that. I do however know that they've been ****ing up and our intelligence community needs to do some serious introspection as a whole on how to improve its intelligence gathering practices. What specifically it will do to accomplish this I don't know and don't presume to know.

Clinton also rode 2 seperate booms during most of his presidency( housing and dot com) and was in office at the very beginning of the current downturn. Not to mention the fact that Bush has had an unpopular war, Katrina, the housing bubble, and sky rocketing oil prices to deal with.

Clinton had high taxes and the economy boomed, yet Bush cut taxes and spent a **** ton - two things that are positive in the short run economically - and under his administration the economy still fizzled. Its almost as if the economy is an entity too large to be controlled or manipulated by some minor changes in tax structure (but the Government isn't). Wait, that's true? Case in point.

The way to get the economy back on its feet is to leave private business alone to heal itself, and to do everything possible to keep people's money in their pocket. Giving people less money to put into the economy is not going to help the economy recover.


In reality, fiscal responsibility will produce better results long run. Cutting Bush's tax cuts, reigning in military spending, not giving the Government's rich friends at Banks hand outs and raising some taxes would be good.

My recomendation to you would be if you plan to hold strong convictions about the future of this country, become better informed, because as of now it would seem you are quite poorly informed. That makes it pretty hard to form a good opinion.

[DinanM3atl]

Yah seriously. I really hope they raise my taxes, tax the small business I work for more, lower my take home pay so that we can create more government hand outs. That would be stellar.

[The12lber]

Yah seriously. I really hope they raise my taxes, tax the small business I work for more, lower my take home pay so that we can create more government hand outs. That would be stellar.

If you understood the budget and the tax code, you'd understand why none of that is true. Unfortunately, people don't bother educating themselves and would rather create their political beliefs based on hearsay.

Also, there are plenty of Government hand outs now under Bush. Mostly to big business. No bid contracts ring a bell? Billions of dollars to bail out banks that dug their own graves with irresponsible lending practices when the Government is already a massive deficit sure sounds like the policies of a fiscally responsible and economically mindful party to me.

[DinanM3atl]

Oh really? None of it is true?

So if Obama raises taxes on the tax bracket I am in then I won't take home less? Please explain. This would be awesome if I can dodge a tax increase.

Now if he raises taxes on small business, this would eat into our profit margins which affects my pay. How? I am paid off company profits alongside my salary and that is a big part of my pay. Now we can either raise prices and hope it doesn't affect sales or deal with the lower margins.

So how is none of this true?

[The12lber]

Oh really? None of it is true?

So if Obama raises taxes on the tax bracket I am in then I won't take home less? Please explain. This would be awesome if I can dodge a tax increase.

Now if he raises taxes on small business, this would eat into our profit margins which affects my pay. How? I am paid off company profits alongside my salary and that is a big part of my pay. Now we can either raise prices and hope it doesn't affect sales or deal with the lower margins.

So how is none of this true?

Unless I'm mistaken, he hasn't explicitly stated what his tax code revisions would be. The only reasonable revisions would be on high income earners. You know, the people with the lion's share of the wealth. Are you making more than 300,000 dollars a year? Are your company's annual profits in the billions? If they aren't, I wouldn't worry.

You're speculating and its not quality speculation.

[The12lber]

----

[DinanM3atl]

You edit your post a lot :)

That is the 3rd different reply you posted.

[The12lber]

You edit your post a lot :)

That is the 3rd different reply you posted.
It didn't initially post. And if I post it and I immediately afterwards feel it doesn't contain enough information, why not edit it?

[The12lber]

And for the record, regarding my own stance on the election, they're both douchebags but McCain is a much larger, thoroughly incompetent douchebag.

Don't expect much from Obama, though. If voting changed ever changed a thing, they'd make it illegal. Sure that would violate the constitution, but that's never stopped a President or congressman or Supreme Court Justice (you know, the people who are actually supposed be the last line of defense against unconstitutional acts) before.

[DinanM3atl]

You are right in that respect. Elections now are who has the more believable lies and it is a popularity contest.

[Lucky DAWG]

Unless I'm mistaken, he hasn't explicitly stated what his tax code revisions would be. The only reasonable revisions would be on high income earners. You know, the people with the lion's share of the wealth. Are you making more than 300,000 dollars a year? Are your company's annual profits in the billions? If they aren't, I wouldn't worry.

You're speculating and its not quality speculation.




I think company's with annual profits in the billions are never going to have to worry about what the government is going to do with taxes. The rich stay rich (which i have no problem with, they drive the economy) and can hide that money away in so many ways its not even funny.


The people that need to be worried about Obama's taxes are exactly like he said, small business owners.

[The12lber]

I think company's with annual profits in the billions are never going to have to worry about what the government is going to do with taxes. The rich stay rich (which i have no problem with, they drive the economy) and can hide that money away in so many ways its not even funny.


The people that need to be worried about Obama's taxes are exactly like he said, small business owners.

You obviously can't read, because I said his most likely move would be to tax high income earners. The uppermost tiers of the financially priveleged in this nation have a tremendously disproportionate amount of wealth, there's a lot more money in reversing Bush's economic policies and taxing them then taxing some small businesses making small change or people who aren't making six figures.

[Lucky DAWG]

You obviously can't read, because I said his most likely move would be to tax high income earners. The uppermost tiers of the financially priveleged in this nation have a tremendously disproportionate amount of wealth, there's a lot more money in reversing Bush's economic policies and taxing them then taxing some small businesses making small change or people who aren't making six figures.




you obviously can't read either.


Like i said i'd rather they keep banking and making steps and strides for the economy then there be handouts.

[The12lber]

you obviously can't read either.


Like i said i'd rather they keep banking and making steps and strides for the economy then there be handouts.

Actually, what you pointed out doesn't intimate any lack of reading comprehension considering you never said

"THE FREE RIDE RICH PEOPLE AND MASSIVE CORPORATIONS GET FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO ECONOMIC GROWTH"

and instead expressed the notion that small business owners and your average citizen should be concerned, which I rebutted. As you probably don't know since you don't seem to be the type to be bothered with actually finding out factual information, C (consumer spending) makes up the majority of our GDP. And guess what, most of C is from your average joe. Not Bill Gates and those similarly wealthy. You don't understand economics, so why even bother forming an opinion until you do?

Cut defense spending, cut foreign aid to already rich nations, cut pork spending, cut Bush's tax cuts for the super rich (which have obviously done a lot for the economy, zzz) and cut the imperial foreign policy. Every United States citizen could have free healthcare and we'd run a surplus.

[Lucky DAWG]

Actually, what you pointed out doesn't intimate any lack of reading comprehension considering you never said

"THE FREE RIDE RICH PEOPLE AND MASSIVE CORPORATIONS GET FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO ECONOMIC GROWTH"

and instead expressed the notion that small business owners and your average citizen should be concerned, which I rebutted. As you probably don't know since you don't seem to be the type to be bothered with actually finding out factual information, C (consumer spending) makes up the majority of our GDP. And guess what, most of C is from your average joe. Not Bill Gates and those similarly wealthy. You don't understand economics, so why even bother forming an opinion until you do?

Cut defense spending, cut foreign aid to already rich nations, cut pork spending, cut Bush's tax cuts for the super rich (which have obviously done a lot for the economy, zzz) and cut the imperial foreign policy. Every United States citizen could have free healthcare and we'd run a surplus.




where do the consumers get their money? The jobs created by Bill Gates and those similarly wealthy as you put it.


Yea if you recycle the money back to the lower class they will spend it, but by doing so they will be getting their money as a freebie from the government instead of doing work to push forward the nation as a whole. Less incentives to work, worse products, less free thinkers in the world because less rewards for them.


That is why socialism fails and that is why Obama the socialist will fail

[Total_Blender]

Yea if you recycle the money back to the lower class they will spend it, but by doing so they will be getting their money as a freebie from the government instead of doing work to push forward the nation as a whole. Less incentives to work, worse products,

So you think people will work harder when they recieve LESS? As it is a lot of people in the working class can barely afford to feed themselves and fuel their vehicles, let alone healthcare that will keep them able to work. How is saddling them with the major portion of the tax burden supposed to create a motivated and capable workforce? 8 years of neo-con rule hasn't done a whole lot to increase productivity, ya know :crazy:

And worse products... like the markets aren't flooded with crappy products from China already. :lmfao:

[The12lber]

where do the consumers get their money? The jobs created by Bill Gates and those similarly wealthy as you put it.

Oh, I forgot this is a fallacy as well. While it is true that "Bill Gates and the similarly wealthy" hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, they do not employ a similarly proportionate amount of people. Where do you think the wealth disparity comes from and why do you think ours is on par with most 3rd world nations?

Yea if you recycle the money back to the lower class they will spend it,
but by doing so they will be getting their money as a freebie from the government instead of doing work to push forward the nation as a whole. Less incentives to work, worse products, less free thinkers in the world because less rewards for them.


I never said that. I said healthcare for everyone and a restructured tax code that doesn't give the wealthiest people and corporations what is comparitively with lower income people, a free ride, along with a restructured budget that would actually be balanced and not spend money on senseless things.

So basically you've created this whole scenario for nothing. Part of what I outlined is a socialistic policy, but its not wealth redistrubition which is what you're talking about and its also not socialist to have a progressive tax code which you intimated. Not to be a jerk or anything, but you're rather dense to have not realized this.


That is why socialism fails and that is why Obama the socialist will fail

Socialistic policy fails? You might want to scroll back a few pages to where we determined that socialist countries enjoy a higher standard of living than you do here in the United States. Oh, and strictly economically speaking, they're beating us, too. See GDP per capita for Norway/Sweden etc.

[BanginJimmy]

Socialistic policy fails? You might want to scroll back a few pages to where we determined that socialist countries enjoy a higher standard of living than you do here in the United States. Oh, and strictly economically speaking, they're beating us, too. See GDP per capita for Norway/Sweden etc.


Like China, like N. Korea, like Cuba, they all have an outstanding standard of living.

[BanginJimmy]

So you think people will work harder when they recieve LESS?

No, they wont. Do you think people will work harder when they receive more without working more? Do you think people will work harder in school to become better educated and make those millions if the know that the govt will take an even larger slice than they already do?



As it is a lot of people in the working class can barely afford to feed themselves and fuel their vehicles, let alone healthcare that will keep them able to work.

wise spending, wise savings and continueing to better themselves and they will make more money.


How is saddling them with the major portion of the tax burden supposed to create a motivated and capable workforce?

But they dont have the major portion of the tax burden by a long shot. The top 20% of income earners in the country pay about 78% of the income taxes. The next 30% pay about 19%, and the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The bottom 50% also use about 90% of govt funded social services. Tell me again, who isnt paying their 'fair' portion?


8 years of neo-con rule hasn't done a whole lot to increase productivity, ya know :crazy:

they havent done anything to decrease it either


And worse products... like the markets aren't flooded with crappy products from China already. :lmfao:


yet people still buy them. If every american swapped 1 chinese made product for an american made one each week, it would add something like 100B to the GDP yearly.

I'm looking for a souce on that as we speak. It was something I read off another site earlier but the link isnt working.

[Spektrewing386]

its funny how people cant see the gray between each sides, which is what we need.... gray.

[The12lber]

Like China, like N. Korea, like Cuba, they all have an outstanding standard of living.
Sorry, but I've really had enough of people forming strong opinions but being totally misinformed. North Korea and Cuba are COMMUNIST, which operates under a command economy, and is totally different from having limited socialistic policy like free healthcare while still maintaining a market economy (capitalism) as in West Europe. I bolded and underlined the HUGE, UNMISTAKABLE differences so you might actually finally get the difference.


Also, China started its transition to a market economy nearly 30 years ago, the only thing that's still Communist in China is the name of the ruling party. Oh, and did I mention they're doing pretty well, too? Their standard of living isn't anything to get overly excited about, but I would never dream of putting them in the same boat as North Korea. In a few short years China will have a higher GDP than us. And you were trying to use them as an example of economic failure?

This doesn't reinforce my point about the difference between Communism and Socialism, but reinforces the notion that you obviously don't know **** about ****. You are dumb, learn some stuff and start posting again.

[True Pyroman]

dude's been an american citizen for only 2 years, now he's going to try and run the country? hah. good one.

[The_ CaneCorso]

Was obama born here? I know the terminator wanted to be president but he couldnt because he wasnt born here.

[tony]

He was born in Hawaii

[dz988]

Obama is going to open old wounds and it is not going to be pretty.

x2 i agree

[twinj]

Some people fell to realize those days are over anyway. Thats why history will repeat itself.

[twinj]

Is this political Monday or something? Seem like every anti Obama thread is up and running.

[The12lber]

yet people still buy them. If every american swapped 1 chinese made product for an american made one each week, it would add something like 100B to the GDP yearly.

YEAH, **** FREE TRADE, LETS ADD SOME BLACK SPOTS TO THOSE SUPPLY AND DEMAND SCHEDULES. DEAD WEIGHT LOSS GOOOOO.

[JDMJorgie]

Well, the only thing I have to say about all this is that I rather have a democrat with a decent VP than a half dead twit with a VP that has had less then two years as governor. And the only other political experiance (if you can call it experiance) she has had is being a mayor of a very small town in Alaska. Now riddle me this. How would you feel if McCain happened to die and this fluke VP with a more extreme domestic plan then George W. and NO foreign policy experiance would take office. I would be s***ing my pants if this were to happen. Personally Obama is the obvious choice. I've always been neutral when it came to presidential nominations but with recent events that Dubya has caused makes me want for a change.

[Whiteboy572]

McCain for 08'

+1 :goodjob: