As I have said on other topics, the chances of bush's socialist policies passing are slim to none. I have never seen such dramatic reactions about an election. The president does not have that much control, prey obama surrounds himself with sound and logical minds.
I once thought that, but I mean Clinton got impeached for lying about a BJ, Bush, well let's just say nothing has happened. Eh, I hope things will get better in any light.
No, that isn't a prediction, that is a quote from Obama. He has already said he will not uphold the Bush tax cuts. Which WILL be an across the board tax increase for the entire nation.
The difference between Bush and Clinton was that Clinton lied under oath. Bush just relayed the SAME faulty intel that Clinton had. It wasn't anything he made up and dreamed up, it was the exact same crap from the previous 8 years.
And as to your comment about being strip searched at airports, how can you even complain about something like that. If we are all slightly inconvienenced so that some nut job doesn't fly a plane into a building killing thousands of people then I'm gonna strip my blinding white ass down and put on one HELL of a show! haha
dude, I'm sorry but security at the airports is retarded.. Can't bring shampoo bottle, eye solutions, a lighter, take off your shoes, can't have your family wait for you at the gate, it's F'd up. And nut jobs were only allowed access to those planes for a few reasons, 1, pilots opened the door, (they have been asking for secured doors for a long time), 2 these terrorists had knifes/box knives, please, if people had any balls they would have rushed them. 3, I can't think of it right now.. Basically if you feel that you should give up your rights for the illusiion of safety than good on ya, there is no safety from terror attacks, the US is way too big to protect, it will happen again, it's just a matter of time. but hey, lets all live under a close watch by the govt, police, live in little zones, have armed guards on the "look-out" it's all leading to that, in the name of safety. I personally rather feel free in an airport and have to "chance" a terror attack. Hell I hate going to the airport anymore, it really sucks, the TSA people are A-holes, takes forever, and oh, I have to pay more money for a sept 11 tax, give me a break. Illusion of safety is darn right dum. I don't know when it started but the fact is nothing is safe, hell you can choke on your own tongue, should we have tongue restraints? Anyway, yeah I think airport security is really dumb
i dont fly often. in fact, ive only flown 6 times in my life. this includes the to and from trips and layovers. every time i have flown was post 9/11
not once did security bother me. even when i was randomly selected to be searched it didnt bother me. It only took a moment. as long as you know its going to happen and you are ready it isnt bad. I was never disrespected by any members of TSA at any airport ive ever been in. (Akron-canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, BWI, LAS). It sucks that you have had a tough time with travel. i hope in the future it gets better.
you do make good points about the door and the knives. I think thats been fixed via the security. the more money for the 9-11 tax is kinda dumb too but only because it is a tax...
btw...i dont think you can choke on your tongue, but i see your point. how do you feel about seat belts?
Ok Phobic, you say Sept 11th happened because the people didn't have the balls to rush them? What about the people on Flight 93? They did fight, they all still died. And if you want to take that risk thats fine, but I don't want my family in more danger because your too important to be bothered. Look at Richard Reed... Smuggled explosives on the plane in his shoes. Not to mention he is the only man ever so ugly that he won't even laid in prison! haha But seriously, I understand that there is no way to totally ensure safety, but why make things as easy as possible for these people? Because as you said yourself, they will do it again. Oh, and the shampoos and liquids will be allowed on the planes again early next year thanks to new technology. It's funny you have a problem paying any extra tax because of 9/11 safety measures when you buy an airline ticket, but you have no problems with paying for Obama's social programs...
It's funny you have a problem paying any extra tax because of 9/11 safety measures when you buy an airline ticket, but you have no problems with paying for Obama's social programs...
It's funny you have a problem paying any extra tax because of 9/11 safety measures when you buy an airline ticket, but you have no problems with paying for Obama's social programs...
Frankly I'd rather spend billions of dollars getting even a fraction of that amount into the hands of those who truely do need it versus spending billions of dollars so the execs at AIG don't miss their next salon appointment...
It's funny you have a problem paying any extra tax because of 9/11 safety measures when you buy an airline ticket, but you have no problems with paying for Obama's social programs...
Frankly I'd rather spend billions of dollars getting even a fraction of that amount into the hands of those who truely do need it versus spending billions of dollars so the execs at AIG don't miss their next salon appointment...
I don't think billions should go from the government to AIG or anyone else in the form of handouts. I do believe defense spending and air traffic safety are things worth spending money on. Those are things that allow us to work as a capitalist society. The fact that Obama wants to cut our missile defense program is one of the things that scare me the most. While Iran and N. Korea are developing longer range missiles everyday we need to be more and more aware of our needs to protect ourselves. But if you ask President Elect Obama, "Iran and North Korea are tiny countries that pose no real threat to us."
Picking up on one thread in Puro's comment -- it's one that's come up a few times -- why is it we're so worried a nuclear Iran or N. Korea would attack us? Is it because we think they're sufficiently irrational that they wouldn't be deterred by our gargantuanly-huger-than-they-will-ever-dream-of nuclear response?
Gotta agree with Kuzaroni, I fly occasionally and have no problem with airport security. In fact, given that I have a daughter flying with me most of the time, I'm glad for it. It's hard to be so cavalier once you have kids.
Saying those who died lacked balls...not too cool. When that was happening, I'm sure those people thought they were being hijacked and would end up sitting on a tarmac for a while before getting a free night at a Hilton and another flight home.
Picking up on one thread in Puro's comment -- it's one that's come up a few times -- why is it we're so worried a nuclear Iran or N. Korea would attack us? Is it because we think they're sufficiently irrational that they wouldn't be deterred by our gargantuanly-huger-than-they-will-ever-dream-of nuclear response?
If Obama has his way and we cut our nuclear arsenal that way he wants to then yes, they would see us as a weak target. Go watch the video I posted on the last page where he says he will cut our missile defense system and nuclear arsenal.
We should cut our nuclear arsenal. We don't need to be able to destroy the world 8x over in order to have an effective nuclear deterrent. N. Korea has one or two nukes that they may not even be able to deliver to a target, and look at how everybody is already tiptoeing around them -- even countries with much larger nuclear arsenals, like us. Or Pakistan. Or India.
If you can guarantee delivery even after suffering a surprise first-strike, which we can and will still be able to under Obama's proposals, a handful of nuclear weapons are a sufficient deterrent.
We should cut our nuclear arsenal. We don't need to be able to destroy the world 8x over in order to have an effective nuclear deterrent.
And that's just the nukes that are one the books and that we know about... Does anyone SERIOUSLY think we don't have about DOUBLE that amount tucked away keeping them hidden from other countries? Come on...
Remove HALF the nukes that we own and we'd still be able to destroy ANY country several times over and over and over...
Picking up on one thread in Puro's comment -- it's one that's come up a few times -- why is it we're so worried a nuclear Iran or N. Korea would attack us? Is it because we think they're sufficiently irrational that they wouldn't be deterred by our gargantuanly-huger-than-they-will-ever-dream-of nuclear response?
If Obama has his way and we cut our nuclear arsenal that way he wants to then yes, they would see us as a weak target. Go watch the video I posted on the last page where he says he will cut our missile defense system and nuclear arsenal.
I think North Korea is crazy enough to do it whether we could turn the country to a sheet of glass or not. Their glorious leader seems to have a warped sense of reality.
As far as Iran goes, I don't think they are crazy enough to just attack us, even if we cut our nuclear arsenal. They know what they are doing and they know they can't beat us. The main issue there is Israel. Iran and Israel are at each other's throats and Iran knows that if either of them makes a major move, the US is going to come in swinging. Their only hope at all is to build up an arsenal of WMD's fearsome enough to either scare us off, or cripple us. They ARE crazy enough to do that.
I think North Korea is crazy enough to do it whether we could turn the country to a sheet of glass or not. Their glorious leader seems to have a warped sense of reality.
Then what's the benefit of our having the huge nuclear arsenal we have today, as opposed to the smaller one Obama proposes? I mean, if they're as irrational as you think (and for all I know, you're right), 50,000 nukes is no more deterrent than 50 nukes, the latter being sufficient to "turn their country to a sheet of glass." ISTM the problem they present in that case is how to keep them from developing a nuclear arsenal (or how to roll them back), not how big ours is.
Wafflebob:
As far as Iran goes, I don't think they are crazy enough to just attack us, even if we cut our nuclear arsenal. They know what they are doing and they know they can't beat us. The main issue there is Israel. Iran and Israel are at each other's throats and Iran knows that if either of them makes a major move, the US is going to come in swinging. Their only hope at all is to build up an arsenal of WMD's fearsome enough to either scare us off, or cripple us. They ARE crazy enough to do that.
I'm not sure I follow your argument, Vaffle. Are you saying they're crazy enough to build up a WMD arsenal for strictly defensive purposes?
As a side note, Israel wouldn't need us to intervene in a nuclear exchange with Iran. They've already got way more nukes than anybody else in the region (maybe everybody else combined), and they've got a lot of them on submarines, so they aren't vulnerable to a first strike.
We should cut our nuclear arsenal. We don't need to be able to destroy the world 8x over in order to have an effective nuclear deterrent.
And that's just the nukes that are one the books and that we know about... Does anyone SERIOUSLY think we don't have about DOUBLE that amount tucked away keeping them hidden from other countries? Come on...
Remove HALF the nukes that we own and we'd still be able to destroy ANY country several times over and over and over...
But I want the country that we nuke to become really shiny glass instead of just slighty shiny.
Good point Kuz. I wasn't saying we should develop more, but we shouldn't scale back our nuclear arsenal. I do think putting some of the current stock into newer more modern weapons would be a good move. I mean seriously what good would come from reducing our current levels of nukes?
I think North Korea is crazy enough to do it whether we could turn the country to a sheet of glass or not. Their glorious leader seems to have a warped sense of reality.
Then what's the benefit of our having the huge nuclear arsenal we have today, as opposed to the smaller one Obama proposes? I mean, if they're as irrational as you think (and for all I know, you're right), 50,000 nukes is no more deterrent than 50 nukes, the latter being sufficient to "turn their country to a sheet of glass." ISTM the problem they present in that case is how to keep them from developing a nuclear arsenal (or how to roll them back), not how big ours is.
I agree, there is no benefit to our huge nuclear arsenal. The only advantage a large arsenal had was we could aim them at many targets at once. With current missile technology we could fire ICBMs from almost anywhere and still hit our target, not to mention how many subs and aircraft carriers are designed to fire them.
Wafflebob:
As far as Iran goes, I don't think they are crazy enough to just attack us, even if we cut our nuclear arsenal. They know what they are doing and they know they can't beat us. The main issue there is Israel. Iran and Israel are at each other's throats and Iran knows that if either of them makes a major move, the US is going to come in swinging. Their only hope at all is to build up an arsenal of WMD's fearsome enough to either scare us off, or cripple us. They ARE crazy enough to do that.
urbino:
I'm not sure I follow your argument, Vaffle. Are you saying they're crazy enough to build up a WMD arsenal for strictly defensive purposes?
As a side note, Israel wouldn't need us to intervene in a nuclear exchange with Iran. They've already got way more nukes than anybody else in the region (maybe everybody else combined), and they've got a lot of them on submarines, so they aren't vulnerable to a first strike.
What I meant was that they would be crazy enough to use nukes on the US to try and cripple us.
I don't think a nuclear exchange between the two is likely. Iran doesn't have nukes yet as far as we know, just a program to develop them. That's what Israel wants to stop and it's most likely what would cause a war to break out. Nuclear weapons are a big reason why Israel is as stable as it is and if their enemies start getting them that could change quickly.
I mean seriously what good would come from reducing our current levels of nukes?
I could argue a lot actually... I don't know how much you've studied our current nuclear weapons, but the money that is required for their upkeep is insane... The fuels (which are RIDICULOUSLY expensive and RIDICULOUSLY dangerous) have to be "replaced" like every year or something if I remember right... The inspections, the security, etc...
If one agrees with the argument that 1000 nuclear weapons is the same as 100 nuclear weapons in terms of security, then reducing the number from 1000 to 100 would theoretically make the upkeep costs 10% of what they are now... That would be a huge step towards reducing our historicaly high national debt.
Once again, why is everyone so upset by spending money to keep us safe but has no problem paying for Obama's social programs... It makes absolutely no sense to me...
Once again, why is everyone so upset by spending money to keep us safe but has no problem paying for Obama's social programs... It makes absolutely no sense to me...
10 or 10000 nukes won't really make anyone safe. All it would take is one nuke and that's it. The fallout alone would be disastrous, especially at the megaton levels these days, though I highly doubt that any nuke other than our own would be as powerful, but if one of ours or many of ours were used on us that would be a different story. Basically any nuke hitting any place would be bad, and for radicals such as the tali-ban the "thought" process of what if, and what after doesn't really work the same as say, Russia, China, and any other large powers. The whole idea of stock-piling thousands of nukes is just as retarded as the whole "cold war" quagmire. Though you could through the "we have more ..." in the pot, along with locking down airports, home land security, tapping phones on civilians, having cameras on every corner, using GPS on cell phones to track people, inventing software to use on city street surveillance systems to statistically gauge on if someone will steel, do a crime, or engage in terrorist activity, they all are used to make the masses feel "safe" while slowly make the masses into a categorized mob that is watched, traced, and basically turned into the exact opposite of what our constitution gives us. Though I'm sure no one agrees with me..
Once again, why is everyone so upset by spending money to keep us safe but has no problem paying for Obama's social programs... It makes absolutely no sense to me...
great question
As Shirley and I have been arguing, spending money for more nukes (or to maintain the current number) is not, in fact, keeping us safe. If it were, that would be different. Since it isn't, it's hard to see the point in continuing to throw good money after bad, especially while we're running up huge deficits and the economy is going in the toilet.
One could make a Keynesian argument for boosting defense spending -- that it amounts to boosting the private economy. The problem is, there are much better ways of using gov't spending to boost economic activity.
we should worry more about creating jobs rather than refining the kills of the people to beg for and demand money from another government hand out. the stimulus check that was already sent out and the bail out and the "new stimulus" check are benchmarks on US economic policy. the benchmark? the most socialist we have ever been.
BTW, the site I linked to is from Moody's, which ain't exactly famous for its liberalism. The chart on that page that I particularly wanted to call attention to was the one showing, essentially, the efficiency, as economic stimulus, of various kinds of gov't spending. All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
how about if the government doesnt take the money from the the people in the first place? oh wait but we are only taking the rich. my bad. the people that employ all the people and give them money. if the "evil and greedy rich" have less money to pay the people they hire to "do their bidding" then how are the people going to get money? its ok... the government will give them everything.
im gunna stop working. i can get everything for fee anyway. my survival and the survival of the economy doesnt depend on people having jobs at all.... just having money. why should i work? i can live off of the government.
Huge sections of the private economy were completely taken over -- nationalized -- by the gov't during WWII. The gov't told private industrialists what to make, how much to make, and when to make it. That's way, WAY more socialist than anything we've seen since, up to and including the present and anything Obama has proposed. It was full-on command-and-control economics.
kuzi16:
urbino:
All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
how about if the government doesnt take the money from the the people in the first place?
Well, like I said, "if you're trying to stimulate the economy..."
kuzi16:
im gunna stop working. i can get everything for fee anyway.
Huge sections of the private economy were completely taken over -- nationalized -- by the gov't during WWII. The gov't told private industrialists what to make, how much to make, and when to make it. That's way, WAY more socialist than anything we've seen since, up to and including the present and anything Obama has proposed. It was full-on command-and-control economics.
kuzi16:
urbino:
All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
how about if the government doesnt take the money from the the people in the first place?
Well, like I said, "if you're trying to stimulate the economy..."
kuzi16:
im gunna stop working. i can get everything for fee anyway.
Good luck with that.
Thats actually one of the strengths of our government, the ability to change gears when necessary, particularly during war time. Yes it was a very socialist time in the countries history, but what would have happened to us if the government was unable to contract private companies to make weapons? In WWII we were up against major war machines. We need to be able to nationalize in the event of a major crisis. What's scary is that this ability could be abused or we might get a commander in chief who might not know his head from his *** in the time of a crisis.
All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
how about if the government doesnt take the money from the the people in the first place?
Well, like I said, "if you're trying to stimulate the economy..."
kuzi16:
im gunna stop working. i can get everything for fee anyway.
Good luck with that.
my point with this is that peoples will to work is being eroded. if people can get enough assistance to not work or work very little what is the motivation to work harder? many times you work harder and the payoff isnt immediate. its quicker to have the government do things for you. this stumps that persons ability/drive to do better. hence it is eroding the american work drive. im not saying its killing it
All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
how about if the government doesnt take the money from the the people in the first place?
Well, like I said, "if you're trying to stimulate the economy..."
kuzi16:
im gunna stop working. i can get everything for fee anyway.
Good luck with that.
my point with this is that peoples will to work is being eroded. if people can get enough assistance to not work or work very little what is the motivation to work harder? many times you work harder and the payoff isnt immediate. its quicker to have the government do things for you. this stumps that persons ability/drive to do better. hence it is eroding the american work drive. im not saying its killing it
...yet.
You should read "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut (sp)
Comments
not once did security bother me. even when i was randomly selected to be searched it didnt bother me. It only took a moment. as long as you know its going to happen and you are ready it isnt bad. I was never disrespected by any members of TSA at any airport ive ever been in. (Akron-canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, BWI, LAS). It sucks that you have had a tough time with travel. i hope in the future it gets better.
you do make good points about the door and the knives. I think thats been fixed via the security. the more money for the 9-11 tax is kinda dumb too but only because it is a tax...
btw...i dont think you can choke on your tongue, but i see your point.
how do you feel about seat belts?
Saying those who died lacked balls...not too cool. When that was happening, I'm sure those people thought they were being hijacked and would end up sitting on a tarmac for a while before getting a free night at a Hilton and another flight home.
If you can guarantee delivery even after suffering a surprise first-strike, which we can and will still be able to under Obama's proposals, a handful of nuclear weapons are a sufficient deterrent.
Remove HALF the nukes that we own and we'd still be able to destroy ANY country several times over and over and over...
As a side note, Israel wouldn't need us to intervene in a nuclear exchange with Iran. They've already got way more nukes than anybody else in the region (maybe everybody else combined), and they've got a lot of them on submarines, so they aren't vulnerable to a first strike.
why make more nukes when we dont get enough use out of the ones we have?
If one agrees with the argument that 1000 nuclear weapons is the same as 100 nuclear weapons in terms of security, then reducing the number from 1000 to 100 would theoretically make the upkeep costs 10% of what they are now... That would be a huge step towards reducing our historicaly high national debt.
One could make a Keynesian argument for boosting defense spending -- that it amounts to boosting the private economy. The problem is, there are much better ways of using gov't spending to boost economic activity.
we should worry more about creating jobs rather than refining the kills of the people to beg for and demand money from another government hand out. the stimulus check that was already sent out and the bail out and the "new stimulus" check are benchmarks on US economic policy. the benchmark? the most socialist we have ever been.
BTW, the site I linked to is from Moody's, which ain't exactly famous for its liberalism. The chart on that page that I particularly wanted to call attention to was the one showing, essentially, the efficiency, as economic stimulus, of various kinds of gov't spending. All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
im gunna stop working.
i can get everything for fee anyway. my survival and the survival of the economy doesnt depend on people having jobs at all.... just having money. why should i work? i can live off of the government.
my point with this is that peoples will to work is being eroded. if people can get enough assistance to not work or work very little what is the motivation to work harder? many times you work harder and the payoff isnt immediate. its quicker to have the government do things for you. this stumps that persons ability/drive to do better. hence it is eroding the american work drive. im not saying its killing it
...yet.