View Full Version : Obama promises to rid the world of nuclear weapons
Webmaster
07-16-2008, 13:22
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91V3A3O0&show_article=1
And he will turn water into wine, feed thousands with a few fish and a loaf of bread, and rise from the dead in three days.
This guy really scares me. :eek:
Tony Dismukes
07-16-2008, 14:36
Actually, what he promises is to make a priority of securing loose nukes and reducing nuclear stockpiles. He does say that achieving a nuke-free world should be a goal, but his immediate commitment is towards more achievable interim goals.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we’ll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy. We’ll negotiate with Russia to achieve deep reductions in both our nuclear arsenals and we’ll work with other nuclear powers to reduce global stockpiles dramatically. We’ll seek a verifiable global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll work with the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and then seek its earliest possible entry into force.
Full speech text here. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gGxPZW)
During his time in the senate, Obama has worked with Senator Dick Lugar on legislation to reduce the risks from nuclear proliferation.
I have no problem with ridding the world of nuclear weapons. And I think the goal of reducing proliferation and loose nukes is a worthy one. However, the rest of the world will never agree with that, certainly not our enemies. This leaves us in a situation where the goal is one of fantasy, not reality. He is all style and very little substance from what it appears. We actually know very little about him, but what I know, unfortunately, I do not like.
As much as I try to be a moderate and not tow one particular party line over the other, sigh... Another presidential election which I am forced to one side by the inability of the other to bring anyone to the table worth electing. I don't really have anything against McCain, but he doesn't really excite me either. Obama just seems out of touch and really naive to me. Bad combo in a President in my view.
Webmaster
07-16-2008, 14:44
Actually, what he promises is to make a priority of securing loose nukes and reducing nuclear stockpiles. He does say that achieving a nuke-free world should be a goal, but his immediate commitment is towards more achievable interim goals.
From the article:
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.
During his time in the senate, Obama has worked with Senator Dick Lugar on legislation to reduce the risks from nuclear proliferation.
He assumed office on January 4, 2005. He's has been running for office for the past two years, so that leaves him with about a years worth of experience in the US Senate. Yes indeed, he's ready for the big chair! :laugh:
Tony Dismukes
07-16-2008, 15:08
From the article:
Quote:
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.
What you have there is a reporter's description of Obama's speech. If you read his actual speech (which I linked to), he never indicates that he expects to fully rid the world of nuclear weapons during his term of office. What he describes in his speech as his actual plans for his time in office is a list of concrete proposals for reducing the risk from nuclear weapons - particularly the risk of nuclear materials in the hands of rogue states or terrorists.
We actually know very little about him, but what I know, unfortunately, I do not like.
There's actually a lot more information available on Obama than you might realize. I've read his books and I've studied his policy proposals, his legislative record, and his personal history. If you have specific questions to fill in the gaps of your knowledge about him, feel free to shoot me an IM or start a separate thread.
I have read most of that Tony but thanks for the offer. He doesn't have that much of a legislative record but what he does have scares the heck out of me. I tried to read one of his books but stopped about 2/3 into it. It was nothing more than Obama's spin on how he wanted the world view him.
I don't think any one-term Senator has the experience to be President. Obama actually believed the same thing at one time (when he ran for the Senate in the first place). I actually respected his candor when he made that initial statement a few years ago. Of course, that position didn't last once he realized that he might have a shot at actually winning it. The lack of a firm stance on what, to me, is such an important point bothers me significantly. It creates in my mind, a lack of trust in his perspective and credibility.
Webmaster
07-16-2008, 15:24
There's actually a lot more information available on Obama than you might realize.
Really? :laugh:
...I've studied his policy proposals,
Which have dramatically changed like a typical politician that is doing and saying anything to get elected. The examples of his flips and flops are too long to list, but a recent one is his support of the DC gun ban and then him jumping on the bandwagon in support of the recent Supreme Court decision.
...his legislative record,
...such as it is. :laugh:
1997–2004: Illinois State Legislature. Barely seven whole years of experience and a history of rarely taking a stand on anything. Instead, he just votes "present". http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html
2005-Present: US Senate. Assumed office in January 2005 and "officially" announced his candidacy for President in February 2007. However, he actually started campaigning well before that. A years worth of experience at the Federal level does not a President make.
...and his personal history.
Like him being buddies with known and unrepentant domestic terrorist, crazy hate-filled preachers, and other radicals on the far left? Throws his "racist" grandmother under the bus and now embraces her as a woman of virtue?
Still waiting to see him change water into wine. :rolleyes:
Question for y'all - what do you think of the idea of nuclear deterance? Feasible or not?
Worked out alright with the Soviets - despite some flare ups in the Cold War it never went nuclear. That's something.
I don't see religious sociopaths as being the same kind of opponent. They seem to care a lot less if they or their kids live. The Soviets, for all their faults, did seem to want their kids to survive.
Webmaster
07-16-2008, 15:42
I don't see religious sociopaths as being the same kind of opponent. They seem to care a lot less if they or their kids live. The Soviets, for all their faults, did seem to want their kids to survive.
I think that is the key Erik. When you have nutcases out there that don't care about something as basic as their lives of their children, then deterrence is pretty much gone.
That's the million dollar question Erik in this new world we live in. I think you bring up a very good point. One, that I do not have the answer to... I think it is likely to work with Nation-States like Iran, China, and North Korea but if any terrorist groups ever get nukes, we are in for a world of crap... If we have any sort of credible evidence that a terrorist group has nuclear capability, we will have pretty much no choice but to wipe them off the map immediately. Assuming we can find the bastards in the first place.
That's kind of how I see it but there's one further variable: the populace hosting (either voluntarily or otherwise) the sociopaths.
If they want to survive then they can be pressured to exert pressure. I am still working on this concept and not completely sure how it works in detail (and I've been out of poli-sci for 14 years), but I think it has some merit and can be leveraged.
Webmaster
07-16-2008, 16:03
Here is where he raised the dead and healed the sick.
http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/obama-the-2nd-coming.jpg
Cliff Hargrave
07-16-2008, 16:20
I don't like Obama because he is a typical poster child leftist. He is supported by every left wing organization in the country.
David Craik
07-16-2008, 16:31
Perhaps we could trim our arsenal to where we could only destroy the earth once or twice over. Obama talks a good game, and while it would be nice to get someone with some fresh ideas in office, pictures like the one Cliff posted really worry me. Don't think I'm too hip on having a President that has a communist banner in their campaign offices. And while he is well-educated, he has very little political experience...which could be a good thing, depending on how you look at it I guess.
Tony Dismukes
07-16-2008, 16:31
Which have dramatically changed like a typical politician that is doing and saying anything to get elected. The examples of his flips and flops are too long to list, but a recent one is his support of the DC gun ban and then him jumping on the bandwagon in support of the recent Supreme Court decision.
Reading the actual words of Obama's proposals over time, I actually find them more consistent than most politicians. (Particularly John McCain's) (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops)
With regards to the D.C. gun ban:
1) It has nothing to do with any policy proposal or stated priority by Obama.
2) Obama has always stated that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right which may be subject to reasonable restrictions by local legislatures according to local needs. When previously asked about the D.C. gun ban, he had indicated that he thought it was probably constitutional, i.e. the restrictions were within acceptable bounds. The Supreme Court decision found that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right which may be subject to reasonable restrictions by local legislatures according to local needs - however the restrictions in D.C. went too far and were not within acceptable bounds. Obama then indicated that he accepted the court's decision that the D.C. ban had been too far-reaching. Hardly what I'd call a major flip-flop, especially since it has nothing to do with any of his policy proposals.
2005-Present: US Senate.
You can find a list of some of his legislative work here (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html). I rather like the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act.
Like him being buddies with known and unrepentant domestic terrorist, crazy hate-filled preachers, and other radicals on the far left?
I'm not a big fan of Rev. Wright, but I've read his actual sermons in full, rather than relying on mischaracterizations and out-of-context quotes. In general, even when I disagree with them, I don't find them crazed or hate-filled. Certainly I find them less so than I do the statements of certain white, right-wing preachers whom McCain once deonounced as "agents of intolerance" before deciding he needed their support.
Throws his "racist" grandmother under the bus and now embraces her as a woman of virtue?
That is complete BS. Anyone who listened to or read Obama's speech and thought he was "throwing his grandmother under the bus" is displaying a utter lack of basic comprehension.
However, just for those who haven't read the speech (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html) and for the comprehension-impaired, I will explain his point.
Obama was explaining that we are all the product of our personal histories and that even the best of us have flaws, such as racism. Those flaws are not the sum total of who we are, and we can love and respect someone even when they do have some significant flaw, such as racism. His original speech makes it quite clear that he loves his grandmother and considers her a woman of virtue even though she has at time expressed racist views.
By the way, Robert, you started this thread to mock Obama's latest speech on security issues (including nuclear proliferation). Now that I've linked to the actual text of that speech, perhaps you can read through and explain which specific proposals you find unreasonable or "scary"?
Tony Dismukes
07-16-2008, 16:38
pictures like the one Cliff posted really worry me. Don't think I'm too hip on having a President that has communist banners in their campaign offices.
Not to worry, that banner was not in an offical campaign office. Here is the statement from the Obama campaign:
This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama’s views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people."
David Craik
07-16-2008, 16:47
That's good to know, thanks Tony. I figured as much..such a display would surely be political suicide anyway.
Cliff Hargrave
07-16-2008, 17:44
Rev. Wright is a proponent of black liberation theology, a leftist, and hosts such notable whack jobs in his church as Louis Farrakhan and Michael Pfleger. He could preach the sky was blue and I would go outside to check for sure.
That Che flag is just a prime example of the Obama's supporters. He is a worse flip-flopper than McCain and panders to whatever audience he has, worse than Bill Clinton. His Senate voting record is the only one MORE liberal than Hillary. He associates with folks like William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, and groups like ACORN and MoveOn. He is by far the most leftist / socialist / radical / neo-communist candidate ever in the history of our nation.
It's a sad time in the USA when someone as leftist as Obama is even elected to anything, much less the office of President.
and to think I was worried about Hillary........
Webmaster
07-16-2008, 17:45
By the way, Robert, you started this thread to mock Obama's latest speech on security issues (including nuclear proliferation). Now that I've linked to the actual text of that speech, perhaps you can read through and explain which specific proposals you find unreasonable or "scary"?
From Obama's speech...
But we need to do much more. It’s time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we’ll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy.
I rest my case. :bow:
Webmaster
07-16-2008, 17:55
Flip and Flop...
* Guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFO6COAMCY)
* Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/us/politics/04policy.html?hp)
* Public Financing for campaigns (http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/public-financing.php)
* Immunity for telecoms on wiretapping (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/02fisa.php)
* NAFTA (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/)
* Abortion (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html)
* Cuba Embargo
(http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/dem_flipflops.html)
Now let's not forget a few other little things about the Messiah.
* Obama’s association with (now convicted felon) Tony Rezko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko) is well-known.
* The Washington Post (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Obamas_loan.html) recently reported that he got a cushy home loan from Northern Trust. (To be fair, Barack’s loan doesn’t appear as questionable as the Friend of Angelo (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/06/also-a-friend-o.html) loans that went to Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad.)
* Obama adviser Jim Johnson received multiple (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-johnson12-2008jun12,0,1290201.story) Friend of Angelo loans from CFC, and was quickly shown the door. But the fact that Johnson, the former CEO of Fannie Mae, has remained so close to Democratic politics despite the accounting scandals at Fannie (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301751.html) is more troublesome.
* Then there’s Obama’s national finance chairwoman, billionaire Penny Pritzker, whose subprime lending operation Superior Bank went under (http://www.forbes.com/2002/11/05/cz_bc_1105pritzker.html) earlier this decade amidst an accounting scandal.
shinbushi
07-16-2008, 20:38
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91V3A3O0&show_article=1
And he will turn water into wine, feed thousands with a few fish and a loaf of bread, and rise from the dead in three days.
This guy really scares me. :eek:
I think this sums it up best
http://www.taijutsu.com/666 Obomba.jpg
IMO referring to Obama as messiah (especially with the capital M), even as a joking matter is kind of offensive. I much prefer calling him the Tempter, Dark Prince, Deceiver, Anti-christ or just plain ol' Devil :D
Rasputin
07-16-2008, 22:46
Obama promises to rid the world of nuclear weapons
Just as long as I get to keep mine, he can do whatever he wants with the rest of them.
:rocket:
Rasputin
07-16-2008, 22:54
Oh, and if you don't like the choices which have been hand-picked for you, you can always join me in writing in Ron Paul. Vote your conscience, not for the lesser of two evils.
starkjudo
07-16-2008, 23:15
Oh, and if you don't like the choices which have been hand-picked for you, you can always join me in writing in Ron Paul. Vote your conscience, not for the lesser of two evils.
I'll go with Bob Barr instead. Less wasted that way.
starkjudo
07-16-2008, 23:15
Oh, and if you don't like the choices which have been hand-picked for you, you can always join me in writing in Ron Paul. Vote your conscience, not for the lesser of two evils.
I'll go with Bob Barr instead. Less wasted that way.
Rasputin
07-16-2008, 23:25
You only get one vote!
This is silly, folks.
If I could find a photo of some skinheads with a swastika behind them and wearing McCain shirts or photoshop McCain into a Soviet uniform with Red Square behind him it would say nothing about the senator himself, just about the goofball who made the photo or the morons with the swastikas.
This is silly, folks.
If I could find a photo of some skinheads with a swastika behind them and wearing McCain shirts or photoshop McCain into a Soviet uniform with Red Square behind him it would say nothing about the senator himself, just about the goofball who made the photo or the morons with the swastikas.
Agreed 100% Erik. I have serious issues with Obama's ideas and record and do not in anyway think he would be a good president. However, attacks like that do nothing to help and only make the people who level them look like idiots. It is ironic that the same people who post this sort of image are the same ones who get bent out of shape when the far left does the same thing to Bush or other conservatives. I don't disagree with your right to do it, but I find it distasteful to slander a sitting President in that manner. I feel the same way about attacks on Obama which are not based in fact but are simply intended to be mean spirited and have little to do with actual discussion or the future of the United States. Whether you disagree with him or not, the man is a United States Senator who was legitimately voted in by the state of Illinois and certainly deserves some respect. I don't mean treat him with kid gloves, but at least act like a freakin' human being and pretend you have some sense.
As for voting for Paul or Barr, that is probably the best way to make sure that Obama is going to end up as president. The democrats jump for joy everytime they hear that someone is thinking about voting for one of those two. Just like the republicans did in 2000 with Nader. I would never want to discourage someone from voting their conscious but reality is reality and neither one of those candidates have a snoball's chance in hell of winning. Furthermore, taking enough votes away from McCain is a damn good way of ushering Obama right into the White House...
Webmaster
07-17-2008, 10:29
I think the about graphic with Obama as the anti-Christ in silly and a little inappropriate. Maybe it was meant in parody, or maybe not. However, it's not particularly humorous. So I am going to delete it (sorry David).
I agree with Jason about voting for Barr or Paul. While I may not agree with McCain all of the time, and he would not have been my first choice for the Republican candidate, I think keeping Obama out of the White House is absolutely crucial. I am not voting for the "lesser evil" for President, I am voting to keep the "greater evil" out of the White House.
I actually don't think either of them is evil.
That wasn't true for all elections but in this case I think both offer some hope for the future (even if lukewarm). Sure, what they offer is different, but I don't think either is a walking disaster (unlike Bush).
I think the about graphic with Obama as the anti-Christ in silly and a little inappropriate. Maybe it was meant in parody, or maybe not. However, it's not particularly humorous. So I am going to delete it (sorry David).
With all due respect Sensei, but isn't depicting Senator Obama as Christ equally as silly and offensive (at least to me), is this more respectful to Obama or derogatory to Christians? I mean if were going to be politically correct and all that! I see no problem with one extreme if the other is tolerated, some people see him as evil and some see him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I know this thread is about Obama saying that he plans to rid the world of Nuclear weapons, does that include the USA? I sure hope not, I believe in peace through superior firepower and as soon as we destroy ours there will be some "crazy" to build another and we will end up working for them. There is an old saying, "The good man can never put his sword down, because evil never will". In this day and age nuclear weapons are protection and bargining chips in the hand of governments, its kind of like being in a "mexican standoff" (no offense to and Hsipanic Americans), you don't want to be the one without a pistol!
I actually don't think either of them is evil.
That wasn't true for all elections but in this case I think both offer some hope for the future (even if lukewarm). Sure, what they offer is different, but I don't think either is a walking disaster (unlike Bush).
See, as soon as a leftist get an inch they will take a mile!
Webmaster
07-17-2008, 11:34
With all due respect Sensei, but isn't depicting Senator Obama as Christ equally as silly and offensive (at least to me), is this more respectful to Obama or derogatory to Christians? I mean if were going to be politically correct and all that! I see no problem with one extreme if the other is tolerated, some people see him as evil and some see him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Mr. Obama has a "Messiah Complex" and his followers hang on to him as if he was a messiah. He is practically being marketed as such! It's called mocking Nick and that's exactly what I am doing with Obamessiah and his followers.
See, as soon as a leftist get an inch they will take a mile!
Hey, you goofball, I'm not a leftist (contrary to Budoseek beliefs). :laugh:
I'm a moderate with left inclination, but not a leftist.
When we finally get a chance to hang out in person, I'm giving you a noogie. :wink2:
No matter who wins 'The Smoking Man' will continue to run the government. It will be OK.
My God, Gillian Anderson was hot.
Hey, you goofball, I'm not a leftist (contrary to Budoseek beliefs). :laugh:
I'm a moderate with left inclination, but not a leftist.
When we finally get a chance to hang out in person, I'm giving you a noogie. :wink2:
I love noogies :p , leftist or not.
Mr. Obama has a "Messiah Complex" and his followers hang on to him as if he was a messiah. He is practically being marketed as such! It's called mocking Nick and that's exactly what I am doing with Obamessiah and his followers.
I was just trying to make the point that David's picture was much along the same line, whether one is mocking him with sarcasim by called him a messiah or flat out depicting him as evil, it is disrespectful to Obamamessiahdarklord either way (and I am perfectly ok with disrespecting the man). Besides, I kinda liked Daivid's picture, it gave me the heebie geebies when I looked at it.:bow:
Cliff Hargrave
07-17-2008, 12:10
Hey, you goofball, I'm not a leftist (contrary to Budoseek beliefs). :laugh:
I'm a moderate with left inclination, but not a leftist.
as he types with a Che shirt on :)
just kidding ........
It amazes me that people cannot look at this like a typical job interview. If you were to screen both of these applicants, which one has by far the most experience? That cannot be argued. Hell, McCain is functionally a Democrat anyway - he just happens to be the most experienced Democrat running right now. ;)
(in my best air-head stoner voice): "I'm voting for Obama, because, uh, he is for Change, and, well uh, Change is good, because not changing is just so 'yesterday....' "
Jeff Cook
Jonathan Randall
07-17-2008, 21:08
It amazes me that people cannot look at this like a typical job interview. If you were to screen both of these applicants, which one has by far the most experience? That cannot be argued. Hell, McCain is functionally a Democrat anyway - he just happens to be the most experienced Democrat running right now. ;)
(in my best air-head stoner voice): "I'm voting for Obama, because, uh, he is for Change, and, well uh, Change is good, because not changing is just so 'yesterday....' "
Jeff Cook
Yes, but if you look at Presidents of the past, one of the highest rated is Lincoln and one of the lowest rated is his predecessor Buchanan. If you look at their pre-Presidential qualifications, Buchanan was probably, on paper, at least, the most qualified of his century and Lincoln was only "middlin" qualified. Not to compare either of the current candidates to either of those past Presidents as neither rates as a Lincoln and I don't think (hard to conceive of it) either would be so passive as was Buchanan while the nation rent itself apart.
Here's my take; McCain has demonstrated immense personal courage and character and has a tremendous record of both civil and military service. Heck, the guy retired as a Navy Captain (0-6) after a FULL (and distinguished) military carreer, then went on to serve a second, and longer career as a successful legislator. Senator Obama doesn't even come close to this record. However; I think that we have overstretched ourselves militarily and, despite his superior defence credentials, I fear that McCain would be too quick on the trigger. Also, House and Senate Republicans let Republican Administrations get away with gross FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY and expansion of Federal Power that they would NEVER tolerate from a Democratic Admin.
Hard call here. McCain's temper concerns me (as well as Republican fiscal irresponsibility) and Obama, the dark horse, with his adulating followers REALLY concerns me. I don't buy all the Republican "Noice Machine" smears against Obama, but if I do end up voting for him I will do so reluctantly and only because we need a constrained Administration to follow up these largely disastrous Bush years, and he, Obama, would be constrained by Congress in a way that McCain wouldn't be (Democrats suck as opposition party - Republicans excel).
I see risks in both; McCain as a new Bush jr. and Obama as the new ------ JIMMY CARTER!!!
I see a risk in both too, to be honest with you. Regarding his temper, consider this: Pres. Nixon, who I personally think was one of our BETTER modern presidents, kept the USSR and other enemies with their finger off the button BECAUSE he appeared to be a crazy SOB with a temper. They didn't know WHAT he was going to do on a day-to-day basis.
I could care less what a President's personality is like. I seriously doubt McCain is going to lose his temper and shoot a missile at someone in a fit of pique.
Jeff Cook
I'm less worried about McCain going nuclear than I am about him being too difficult to deal with to be successful in diplomacy. I'm thinking about that story of him choking someone across the table at a diplomatic meeting - I forget the specifics.
Not that I blame him - that scenario sounded immensely frustrating when I read about it and I probably would have felt the same. But, as president, he's got to be able to do better.
If he has learned and grown from the experience then I'm glad to change my opinion (growth is allowed in people!) but he needs to get that across to me.
Webmaster
07-18-2008, 14:26
Just in case you are confused about Senator Obama's position on Iraq, this video (http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/documentary.htm) should clear it up for you. :eek:
Dennis Monk
07-18-2008, 15:25
I have said this before Robert.
You cannot use a person's exact words against them. It just isn't fair to do so, you know, to use the exact words that they say....
Woah, he is going to rid the world of all nuke's AND protect the embassy in Iraq with a standard embassy unit of 40 Marines, I know Marines are tough but :o if he says so or if he doesn't, or if he does then he doesn't at a later or earlier date of his choice.
Jonathan Randall
07-18-2008, 21:01
I see a risk in both too, to be honest with you. Regarding his temper, consider this: Pres. Nixon, who I personally think was one of our BETTER modern presidents, kept the USSR and other enemies with their finger off the button BECAUSE he appeared to be a crazy SOB with a temper. They didn't know WHAT he was going to do on a day-to-day basis.
I could care less what a President's personality is like. I seriously doubt McCain is going to lose his temper and shoot a missile at someone in a fit of pique.
Jeff Cook
I agree, to an extent, about Nixon. He certainly had some positive qualities. Were it not for Watergate fatally weakening his Presidency (the result of a very real character flaw of his), I think South Vietnam may have held together and China might very well be, if not an ally, at least not so much of an adversary. Nixon was, in the end, a fatally flawed genius. Underrated President.
No, I'm not so much worried about McCain shooting off missiles in a pique as I am about him engaging in further foreign adventures of the Iraq War type as well as antagonizing foks unnecessarily in Diplomatic circles. Also, there is the very real phenomenon of Republican Presidents running huge deficits and being more successful at Federal power grabs than Democrats. Oh, of course Democrats would love to do both, but Republicans in Congress usually manage to stop them - yet they aid Republican Administrations in both.
No question, in my mind, that Senatar Obama has some very real question marks and questionable associations so we agree on this.
Webmaster
07-22-2008, 12:05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701839.html
The Audacity of Vanity
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 18, 2008
Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?
Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)
Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.
Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.
After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: " I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down.
He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French.
His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?
We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/20/the_audacity_of_ego/
The audacity of ego
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | July 20, 2008
JUST LIKE the Obama girl, Obama has a crush on Obama.
Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he's turning into the A-Rod of politics. It's all about him.
He's giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism.
A convention hall isn't good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he's embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans - and America's top news anchors - as extras in his campaign. What do you expect from a candidate who already auditioned a quasi-presidential seal with the Latin inscription, "Vero possumus" - "Yes, we can"?
Obama finds criticism of his wife "infuriating" and doesn't want either of them to be the target of satire. Tell that to the Carters, the Reagans, the Clintons, and the Bushes, father and son.
There's no such thing as a humble politician. But when Obama looks into the mirror, he doesn't just see a president; he sees JFK.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy accepted his party's nomination with an outdoor speech at the Los Angeles Coliseum. But he waited until he was elected before going to Germany to declare "Ich bin ein Berliner."
The fashionistas have already noted Michelle Obama's affinity for chanelling Jackie. And it's hard to watch the Obama daughters "Access Hollywood" interview and not think about Caroline and John F. Kennedy Jr. back in the days of Camelot.
So far, Dad is only promising to get the kids a dog, not a pony named Macaroni.
Republican John McCain has the opposite challenge. As a candidate, he's shrinking, thanks to a series of gaffes, stumbles, and generally uninspiring speeches.
But McCain has one thing going for him: the appearance of modesty.
Part of it is physical. McCain is stiff and awkward, the result of age and injuries from his years as a prisoner of war. That, too, is a contrast to Obama's sleek physique, the consequence of youth and a George W. Bush-like passion for working out.
But with McCain, there's also the sense of a man who made mistakes in life and acknowledges them.
McCain's humility comes through in his book, "Faith of my Fathers," which he wrote at age 63, after completing a career in the US Navy and moving onto politics. Obama wrote the more self-reverential "Dreams from My Father," after he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review.
The McCain campaign is beginning to jump on the ego issue. "I don't know that people in Missouri are going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming for The One," a McCain aide quipped in response to Obama's upcoming visit abroad.
The conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh regularly ridicules "The Messiah also known as Obama." And "The Audacity of Obama" is turning into a ready-made take-off on the title of the Democrat's second book, "The Audacity of Hope."
The downside for Obama is how much his ego stands to resonate beyond the political right.
Last January, the online Slate Magazine debuted "The Obama Messiah Watch."
In February, a blogger for the left-embracing Mother Jones commented on his uneasiness over the candidate's messianic complex: "Does this post play unhelpfully into the pernicious and growing Obamaism-as-cult . . . that we'll likely see repeated over and over by the right wing if Obama gets the nomination?" blogged Jonathan Stein.
"It does. Sorry. But Obama's rhetoric makes an undeniable suggestion: that his election, not an eight-year administration that successfully implements his vision for America, would represent a moment in America of the grandest, most transformative kind. And that's a bit much," Stein wrote.
When the Obama Girl video first surfaced, Obama told the Associated Press, "You do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families."
That's good advice. He should think more about the impact of his ego on voters.
A presidential candidate is supposed to get bigger on the national stage. That doesn't mean his head should, too.
Don't these papers have a left leaning slant?
Webmaster
07-22-2008, 12:13
Don't these papers have a left leaning slant?
Don't they all? :)
If you think they have a liberal slant, try this one on for size...
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7209_barack_obamas_m.html
Don't they all? :)
True, I just found it interesting.
You've got to earn the right to speak at the Brandenburg Gate? Please!
You've got to be invited by the Germans who are passionately in love with Obama and hate Bush and don't really like McCain much (though I think they are too hard on McCain - he's a sound man).
Obama is selling hope, not past achievement. It's up to the Germans to decide who may speak on their turf.
As for speaking languages and coming up to speed globalizing our educations, he's right. Doesn't matter if he's a linguist - he may have discovered the need for this by being frustrated himself by his own inadequacies. Sometimes getting your butt waxed is as good a lesson as winning - think MAs.
(Though I'm still 100% for ALL US citizens and residents being fluent in American English - I write this the morning after working with my wife to study for her citizenship exam - we take it very seriously).
Webmaster
07-22-2008, 14:20
Obama is selling hope, not past achievement.
Wasn't there a guy in Germany back in the 1930's that was also selling "hope"? :up:
Wasn't there a guy in Germany back in the 1930's that was also selling "hope"? :up:
Hope, scapegoats, revenge, a lot of stuff, to a population that was suffering way more than we are right now.
I hope McCain is good at selling some hope, too, you cynic!
:wink2:
Erik, his hope has no substance. I think that is the point. He prefers that we have "faith" in him, as he cannot offer anything original, or anything reassuring us that he has a freakin' clue about ANY of the problems we confront.
Hope is good, but empty hope from a false profit is insulting and dangerous.
Jeff Cook
shinbushi
07-22-2008, 17:30
You've got to earn the right to speak at the Brandenburg Gate?
As for speaking languages and coming up to speed globalizing our educations, he's right. Doesn't matter if he's a linguist - he may have discovered the need for this by being frustrated himself by his own inadequacies. Sometimes getting your butt waxed is as good a lesson as winning - think MAs.
That is not what he said. I hear his speech. He said YOUR kids need to learn Spanish, Immigrants will learn English.
David Craik
07-22-2008, 17:59
We don't need to 'globalize' a damn thing. Are Mexican kids learning Mandarin in school? It's the most spoken language on earth. And when a Frenchman tries to speak to a Japanese, you know what they attempt to converse in? English.
We don't need to 'globalize' a damn thing. Are Mexican kids learning Mandarin in school? It's the most spoken language on earth. And when a Frenchman tries to speak to a Japanese, you know what they attempt to converse in? English.
Yes, educated Mexican kids are learning Chinese, Arabic, and other languages. Not all, but it's happening.
Presently, English has the most money attached to it (spoken by more people with money to spend).
That is likely to change with China (and perhaps with India who already speaks a lot of English) modernizing this century. Think about it - one China is bigger than the USA + Europe + Russia + Japan. India is the same size. We will become a drop in the bucket this century.
As for the French, they are suffering A LOT from being so provincial though they do adequately with oil and the Arabs. The Germans are all over the planet selling industrial technology stuff. They travel like mad and learn other languages and cultures (their educated class does, at least).
English is the top language right now. It will be challenged this century by Arabic, Spanish, Russian, and Mandarin in a very multi-polar world. So, if we are to remain adaptable, able to succeed in trade with those rising powers, we should stay ahead of the game. That's what I mean by globalizing. If we remain provincial in our outlook then we risk becoming like the French.
You've got to earn
As for speaking languages and coming up to speed globalizing our educations, he's right. Doesn't matter if he's a linguist - he may have discovered the need for this by being frustrated himself by his own inadequacies. Sometimes getting your butt waxed is as good a lesson as winning - think MAs.
This is a valid point, it is not which languages Obama speaks but that for America to be more competitive globally (actually all of North America and England) , it will require that its citizens learn more languages.
I don't think you need to speak Cantonese or Spanish to recognize this, in fact I will encourage my children to pick up a second language although all I know is English and high school French.
Actually I am thinking of taking up Portuguese if I ever find the time again.
Its actually not that likely to change Erik. As it stands right now, English is the official language of the aviation community. It is also the official language of the vast majority of international scientific conferences. If you go to a scientific conference that is billed as being international in China, it will be conducted largely in English. This is not likely to change just because we learn Spanish.
I am a proponant of learning more than one language but not having it mandatory.
shinbushi
07-22-2008, 19:07
This is a valid point, it is not which languages Obama speaks but that for America to be more competitive globally (actually all of North America and England) , it will require that its citizens learn more languages. ONCE AGAIN
That is not what he said. He was chastising Americans for wanting Illegals to learn English, He said YOUR (referring to those Americans) kids need to learn Spanish.
You're certainly correct about right now, Jason.
I believe, however, that this century will see significant change.
Recall that ca. 100 years ago French and British English were competing for dominance. In the last 100 years we saw a big big rise of Russian, fall of French, switch to American English (though not universally), and the whole Arab world suddenly mattered A LOT more on account of dividing and conquoring the Ottoman Empire early on and then on account of oil. Now, terrorism.
Regardless of one's stand on Israel, their inception mid-century was a significant change and increased the usefulness of Arabic.
And we all know how close we came to speaking German and/or Japanese (thankfully we can focus on sushi, MAs, and Bier nowadays :)).
In the previous centuries (during the colonial period) Dutch, Portuguese, and Spain-Spanish were the big languages.
So, it would seem to me that one century can see a tremendous amount of change.
If so, then the rise of one single country that has a greater population (read: potential consumers/customers/vendors) than the entire West (plus Eastern Europe!) is likely to be significant enough to change the entire model.
For this reason I believe that as close-to-mandatory-as-possible bi-lingual skills are very important for Americans if we wish to stay on top in the world.
That's just my long-winded two cents.
So how is my becoming more proficient at Spanish going to help me with any of the countries you just mentioned being on the rise?
I meant multi-lingual to interact with the world outside the USA. I wasn't talking about learning Spanish for within the USA. Two different topics. Sorry if I wasn't being clear. My bad.
I feel ALL immigrants should speak and read/write proficient English (to a reasonable level, not like Harvard) before getting their citizenship.
How do you say Nu-cle-ar Wea-pon-s in Arabic? :rolleyes:
Both of our children (ages 4 and 9) are bilingual, the oldest is fluent in French and pretty darn good in Spanish but I will tell you, I have set at a business table with Fins, Germans, Slovakians, Chinese, Swedes’, Polish and Pakistani nationals all at the same time, the universal language that was spoken for the meeting was Bad English.
Erik I know where you are coming from, it is Obama's claim that we need to learn Spanish that confuses me in light of your argument. As for all immigrants needing to learn to read and write English I am with you 100% on that one as well. As a matter of fact, most American's could stand to learn some English too... LOL
David Craik
07-23-2008, 16:30
As a matter of fact, most American's could stand to learn some English too... LOL
Very true. Punctuation too..;) Just kidding Jason.
This whole language discussion begs the question, 'how does one make bi-lingualism anything close to "mandatory" in the first place?' There are only so many hours in a school day. Which high school classes do we cut in order to offer more intensive language instruction which will be largely forgotten by most students a few years after graduation, and which languages do they have a choice of being fluent in? Seems rather silly to mandate either French, Spanish, or German if the kid is going on to work for Daewoo.
Very true. Punctuation too..;) Just kidding Jason.
Let's not get too crazy Dave. I've only got so much time ya' know... Besides, that is what spell check is for. ;)
Which high school classes do we cut in order to offer more intensive language instruction which will be largely forgotten by most students a few years after graduation, and which languages do they have a choice of being fluent in? Seems rather silly to mandate either French, Spanish, or German if the kid is going on to work for Daewoo.
Good question.
In my HS we had to take and pass two years of a language. Spanish, French, German were offered. Don't pass, don't graduate. Was optional during Jr. High to get ahead of the game a bit.
I always thought this was standard for all high schools.
Now, I believe it ought to be (in no particular order of preference) Arabic, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish.
My children attend a Magnet (gifted) School where they learn advanced academics and foreign languages. Subjects like math, science and social studies are taught by one teacher and they only speak a foreign language (French or Spanish) with that teacher for those subjects. The children then go to another teacher where English is spoken to learn social studies, language and history. Keep in mind that this is only one school in the whole Baton Rouge area that does this. If the kids stay in the program, later in J.H. and H.S. they will learn Latin and German or Mandarin. I think that more schools could take from what they do, not from the point of being able to speak so many languages but I would say it also exercises the mind and helps the kids learning ability on all subjects; I am biased in my opinion of course. I still believe that if you are going to live in ANY country you should be able to speak or learning the national language.
Webmaster
07-25-2008, 13:45
Simply hilarious! :laugh: :laugh:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
July 25, 2008
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ***. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”
Eliz Seuferling
07-25-2008, 13:55
....occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow...
I think I need a little "detour" after reading that article. :laugh:
Obama owes me the two minutes of my life back that I spent reading that article. :rolleyes:
David Craik
07-25-2008, 15:20
That's funny as hell. :laugh:
Over the top, but quite funny. Hard to believe that came from the UK as I thought they were all swooning over Obama...
Webmaster
07-28-2008, 12:32
Hmmm, this looks interesting.
http://hypemovie.com/index.html
"I will not spend money on new weapons development, I will slow production on new weapons systems and I will not allow development of any nuclear weapons" B. Obama.
Holy frijoles! We will be wiped off the planet in ten years if that happens.
Webmaster
07-28-2008, 14:57
"I will not spend money on new weapons development, I will slow production on new weapons systems and I will not allow development of any nuclear weapons" B. Obama.
Holy frijoles! We will be wiped off the planet in ten years if that happens.
Well the name of this thread is "Obama promises to rid the world of nuclear weapons". I guess that he wants to start by getting rid of ours first. :eek:
elder999
07-28-2008, 15:06
"I will not spend money on new weapons development, I will slow production on new weapons systems and I will not allow development of any nuclear weapons" B. Obama.
Holy frijoles! We will be wiped off the planet in ten years if that happens.
That's.....interesting.
Wiped off the planet by whom, exactly?
Not to support Mr. Obama, though I do support both his and Mr. McCain's non proliferation/reduction intentions.Again, though:
Wiped off the planet by whom, exactly? Why?
That's.....interesting.
Wiped off the planet by whom, exactly?
Not to support Mr. Obama, though I do support both his and Mr. McCain's non proliferation/reduction intentions.Again, though:
Wiped off the planet by whom, exactly? Why?
First, never take anything someone says as a literal statement for the purpose of debate when they begin with Holy frijoles!. I would say that one could use their imagination to think of WHOM would have a hate grudge, political difference or religious conviction against the U.S. but I guess that is not an option. Why don't you begin this one by telling us whom would be our peaceful loving neighbors when we no longer have the power of military dominance, I guess we will all just get along :rolleyes: .
Dennis Monk
07-28-2008, 15:47
Nick, I understood the humor which you intended.
Of course no one is going to wipe us from the planet such as Iran wants to to do Israel. You know, Iran, the country that Obama initially said that he would love to speak with the leadership of face to face. Nor would any of the other fanatical, radical countries that absolutely hate us because we have supported Israel over the years; and still should continue to do so by the way, be able to wipe us from the face of the planet. Al Qaeda, could not wipe us from the planet even if they wanted to. They could however possibly destroy another center of free market commerce, or military installations, or attack citizenry in large numbers.
Yes folks, vote for Obama and let's reduce our ability to defend ourselves. We will simple throw out a big, "Our bad!" to the world and the bad guys will leave us alone.
I have never been a huge John M. supporter over the years but he has experience and at least supports a strong military.
Side note:
Has anyone here got the email concerning how much grain we ship to oil production companies and what we sell a bushel of grain for? If it is remotely true, I could go for selling a bushel of grain to OPEC countries for the same price as what they sell a barrel of crude oil to us for.
elder999
07-28-2008, 15:50
First, never take anything someone says as a literal statement for the purpose of debate when they begin with Holy frijoles!. I would say that one could use their imagination to think of WHOM would have a hate grudge, political difference or religious conviction against the U.S. but I guess that is not an option. Why don't you begin this one by telling us whom would be our peaceful loving neighbors when we no longer have the power of military dominance, I guess we will all just get along :rolleyes: .
Not to deny that we have enemies that would gladly wipe us off the face of the earth, if they were capable-but how exactly is it that our so-called nuclear deterrant is relevant in any way in regards to those enemies?
I mean, it's not as though al Qaeda has any nuclear capability, or that we or Israel are going to allow Iran any nuclear capability-something we don't need nuclear weapons to deny them, btw. It's not like we'd be lacking for military dominance with a greatly reduced nuclear arsenal, and it's not like Obama or McCain have any chance of achieving total disarmament-though a return to the Reagan era non proliferation standards would be a welcome change.
So, my question stands:
Wiped out by whom?
Not to deny that we have enemies that would gladly wipe us off the face of the earth, if they were capable-but how exactly is it that our so-called nuclear deterrant is relevant in any way in regards to those enemies?
Nobody immediately but re-arming our disarmed nuclear arsenal would take quite a while. Deterrence still matters against nation-states. It means less against pseudo-religious nutbars who don't care if their kids live.
So, who? Russia, China, possibly Europe if things ever get bad with them and we are unable to remain economically interdependent with these countries (recall - if you're dependent upon each other, you can't blow each other up without hurting yourself). Curious to see where India and Pakistan will stand in the next several decades.
Remember - we're talking next 50+ years. Who knows what will happen during that time?
elder999
07-28-2008, 16:25
Nobody immediately but re-arming our disarmed nuclear arsenal would take quite a while. Deterrence still matters against nation-states. It means less against pseudo-religious nutbars who don't care if their kids live.
So, who? Russia, China, possibly Europe if things ever get bad with them and we are unable to remain economically interdependent with these countries (recall - if you're dependent upon each other, you can't blow each other up without hurting yourself). Curious to see where India and Pakistan will stand in the next several decades.
Remember - we're talking next 50+ years. Who knows what will happen during that time?
1) Russia's infrastructure is so compromised as to make any serious nuclear theater threat unlikely. I've seen this firsthand several times over the last 15 years.
2) I'll spare you the specifics for now, but, for the time being, China has absolutely no capability of projecting any nuclear theater threat against us-the mere beginnings of the attempt would guarantee strong action from the U.S.
3) Europe? Don't make me laugh.Ditto Pakistan and India for different reasons. While Europe-specifically, France and England- could project nuclear threats against us, it would be foolhardy in extreme for the many of the same reasons as China. In any case, it's highly unlikely. Even wiith a vastly reduced arsenal (remember, total disarmament is probably even less unlikely than an attack from :lol: Europe....) we'd still be able to do some serious damage to both countries, like, oh, wipe them off the face of the earth. India and Pakistan lack any capability of delivering nuclear theater weapons to the continental U.S., and probably will for the forseeable future-they appear to be pretty content threatening China and each other, anyway.....
Again, there's nothing wrong with the idea of approaching total worldwide nuclear disarmament, or at least a return to Reagan era reduction standards.....and the question still stands
Wiped out by whom?
elder999
07-28-2008, 16:48
Too late to edit-I meant that total disarmament was even more unlikely than an attack from Europe.;......:laugh:
1) Russia's infrastructure is so compromised as to make any serious nuclear theater threat unlikely. I've seen this firsthand several times over the last 15 years.
2) I'll spare you the specifics for now, but, for the time being, China has absolutely no capability of projecting any nuclear theater threat against us-the mere beginnings of the attempt would guarantee strong action from the U.S.
3) Europe? Don't make me laugh.Ditto Pakistan and India for different reasons. While Europe-specifically, France and England- could project nuclear threats against us, it would be foolhardy in extreme for the many of the same reasons as China. In any case, it's highly unlikely. Even wiith a vastly reduced arsenal (remember, total disarmament is probably even less unlikely than an attack from :lol: Europe....) we'd still be able to do some serious damage to both countries, like, oh, wipe them off the face of the earth. India and Pakistan lack any capability of delivering nuclear theater weapons to the continental U.S., and probably will for the forseeable future-they appear to be pretty content threatening China and each other, anyway.....
Again, there's nothing wrong with the idea of approaching total worldwide nuclear disarmament, or at least a return to Reagan era reduction standards.....and the question still stands
Wiped out by whom?
Things Change Aaron. 20 years ago Russia had more than enough capability to attack us with WMD. Who is to say that they will not have that capacity again in the future? 15 years ago, China was not on the global map in terms of their economic capacity. Who knows where they will be in the future?
You plan for the worst, and hope for the best. Assuming that the world will stay the same and that those who currently are no strategic threat will stay that way is the worst kind of dereliction of duty. Not to mention just plain stupid. We had that crap under President Carter with respect to our humint and under Presidents Clinton and Bush (mostly due to Rumsfeld and his plans) in terms of the size of our military. How many times do we have to learn the same lesson. We have no idea who are friends and enemies are going to be 25 years from now, and what their capabilities might be.
In the old days they would say "pray for peace, but keep your powder dry". The world hasn't changed all that much since that time when it comes to preparedness. You keep developing weapons and new technologies, you maintain the ones you have, and you continue to fund and train your military, because it is the prudent thing to do. And you pray like hell you don't have to use them.
I didn't argue it was likely, but things can change in a few decades - who knows? And to re-start a nuclear arsenal (during which time we've lost our deterrance credibility) could take a long time to accomplish.
Europe (the least likely) has changed a lot in a century. Germany from Empire 100 years ago to 3rd Empire to split nation to reunified social wealfare state. That's a lot of change. 5 currencies in a century, if I recall correctly. Who knows what could happen in the next century? Or, considering how quickly things change now, may take only 30 years to morph unrecognizably.
Russia - they may come back on-line. They're trying, planning 6-12 carriers, already screwing around with military flights along the coast of Norway, and stand to make a lot of money selling oil.
China? Went from Mao to hyper-capitalist in 1/2 century. Next 50 years could bring a lot of change. Or not.
So, to disarm doesn't make a lot of sense to me. To emphasize other technologies and other endeavors does make a lot of sense to me.
elder999
07-28-2008, 17:58
Things Change Aaron. 20 years ago Russia had more than enough capability to attack us with WMD.
Well, I'm sorry I don't have time to make it completely clear right now, but the facts make it pretty plain that they really didn't-they had some capability to attack us with nuclear weapons, but it was always far less than we assumed-we were always far more capable than they were in that regard, on every level.
Otherwise, I can kind of agree with you-fact is, though, our having something on the order of 5,000 strategic nuclear weapons deployed, and more than 9,000 in various states of readiness (including that 4,000 deployed) is way out of order to answering any kind of current threat-we actually have on the order of 1,300 megatons deployed right now. A return to Moscow Treaty protocols or at least START I protocols would hardly cripple our capability, especially in light of the lack of any real threatening nation states.
Jonathan Randall
07-28-2008, 21:06
Things Change Aaron. 20 years ago Russia had more than enough capability to attack us with WMD. Who is to say that they will not have that capacity again in the future? 15 years ago, China was not on the global map in terms of their economic capacity. Who knows where they will be in the future?
You plan for the worst, and hope for the best. Assuming that the world will stay the same and that those who currently are no strategic threat will stay that way is the worst kind of dereliction of duty. Not to mention just plain stupid. We had that crap under President Carter with respect to our humint and under Presidents Clinton and Bush (mostly due to Rumsfeld and his plans) in terms of the size of our military. How many times do we have to learn the same lesson. We have no idea who are friends and enemies are going to be 25 years from now, and what their capabilities might be.
Bingo! :bow:
Your points illustrate PERFECTLY why I groan inwardly whenever some pundit suggests that, because we are engaged in a "War Against Terror" and the threat posed by the former U.S.S.R. is becoming a dim memory, we should cancel such defence projects (or scale back so much as to neuter them, in effect) as the F-22 and F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter). Without these, with what will we deter or confront a resurrgent Russia or Powerful China?
BTW, Rumsfailed was a horrible SedDef, IMHO. His "lean" meant not going in with overwhelming force and, instead, turning what could have been a 1-3 year stabilization project in Iraq into a long-term bloody conflict.
Regarding Russia's nuclear capability, Elder999, they could miss (or fail to launch successfully), 99% of the time and still destroy life in the U.S. as we know it...
Mr. Cuffee,
I understand that it would take allot of time to post why you believe the theories which you have posted. So, I will not take the time to post mine, mostly because I am ignorant of global politics and I don't think that I could match wits with you. BUT! I will give you my simple way of thinking. Let's say that various middle eastern countries, the ol' U.S. of A., China and any other countries that might wish to have global power for trade and whatever else global power hungry countries want are in a foot race. Let's call this race the "Dictatorship of Power 500" (brought to you by Coca-Cola), now the U.S. decides that we are strong enough and we no longer need to train our blinding speed, courageous endurance and perseverance since we have been winning every competition for the last hundred years, we also let the other countries no of our intentions and they say "Hey, that's a great idea". Then the middle eastern countries decide (without us knowing of course) that they will train harder than ever and since the U.S. just fired their trainer (trainer=metaphor form nuclear arms dealer/builders), they spend blistering hours training in the hot sand for the next fifteen years because there is nothing they would like more than to see the U.S. go down! Meanwhile China is at home meditating on various strategies and training their mind and body. They plan on defeating the U.S. with superior conditioning, since they also hired the other trainer that the U.S. fired. Back home the U.S. has spent the last fifteen years sitting back living the good life, attending many barbecues with our new friends who for some reason look allot more fit than we do, but I know that they couldn't be training. We made that pact, that we would all stop training, so there is no way that they would do that! Well as the years pass we come to the few months before the "DOP 500" (we have forgotten what the real name of the race was, in our laziness we just use "DOP" because it sounds cool) we now have a strong suspicion, in fact we are almost sure that our opponents have been training all this time. Ohh poop pile! How in the ever living bat crap are we going to catch up with these guys, I thought we were all just going to take it easy for the race, maybe have a beer break every 25 meters or so and just enjoy ourselves. I had no idea that they were serious about this global power thing, I was sure that everyone was happy with me just being the most influential and powerful country. So when the day of the race comes, well you can just imagine the rest.....
:leghump: Oh mister foriegn dictator can I get you another Saki or would you prefer a hot turban.
David Craik
07-29-2008, 05:36
Dictators do love salmon...
We likely have way more nukes than neccesary to kill everyone. I wonder about the storage and maintenance costs for inactive weapons, perhaps this money could be put to better use elsewhere.
Webmaster
07-30-2008, 09:49
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068_pf.html
President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; A03
Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee.
Fresh from his presidential-style world tour, during which foreign leaders and American generals lined up to show him affection, Obama settled down to some presidential-style business in Washington yesterday. He ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally.
Along the way, he traveled in a bubble more insulating than the actual president's. Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about town in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities, which included a fundraiser at the Mayflower where donors paid $10,000 or more to have photos taken with him. His schedule for the day, announced Monday night, would have made Dick Cheney envious:
11:00 a.m.: En route TBA.
12:05 p.m.: En route TBA.
1:45 p.m.: En route TBA.
2:55 p.m.: En route TBA.
5:20 p.m.: En route TBA.
The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls -- just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service hustled him in through a side door -- just as they do for the actual president.
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.
Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported last week that Obama has directed his staff to begin planning for his transition to the White House, causing Republicans to howl about premature drape measuring. Obama was even feeling confident enough to give British Prime Minister Gordon Brown some management advice over the weekend. "If what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything, then you end up being a dilettante," he advised the prime minister, portraying his relative inexperience much as President Bush did in 2000.
On his presidential-style visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem last week, Obama left a written prayer, intercepted by an Israeli newspaper, asking God to "help me guard against pride and despair." He seems to have the despair part under control, but the pride could be a problem.
One source of the confidence is the polling, which shows him with a big lead over McCain. But polls are fickle allies: A USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday found McCain leading Obama by four percentage points among likely voters. Another reason for Obama's confidence -- the press -- is also an unfaithful partner. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reported yesterday that Obama dominated the news media's attention for a seventh straight week. But there are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters.
In the latest issue of the New Republic, Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was "acting like the Prom Queen" and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others." Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign.
Even Bush hasn't tried that. But then again, Obama has been outdoing the president in ruffles and flourishes lately. As Bush held quiet signing ceremonies in the White House yesterday morning, Obama was involved in a more visible display of executive authority a block away, when he met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani at the Willard. A full block of F Street was shut down for the prime minister and the would-be president, and some 40 security and motorcade vehicles filled the street.
Later, Obama's aides issued an official-sounding statement, borrowing the language of White House communiques: "I had a productive and wide-ranging discussion. . . . I look forward to working with the democratically elected government of Pakistan."
It had been a long day of acting presidential, but Obama wasn't done. After a few hours huddling with advisers over his vice presidential choice, Obama made his way to the pep rally on the Hill. Moments after he entered the meeting with lawmakers, there was an extended cheer, followed by another, and another.
"I think this can be an incredible election," Obama said later. "I look forward to collaborating with everybody here to win the election."
Win the election? Didn't he do that already?
It may be arrogant but it is probably also very smart of him and his campaign. "Looking presidential" may go a long way toward negating his lack of experience in many minds, unfortunately...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.