Jump to content
Hash, Inc. Forums
Sign in to follow this  
heyvern

Political cartoon

Recommended Posts

Did somebody say something about nude beaches? B)

 

Europeans who ask how Americans could be so stupid as to vote for Bush twice don't realize... we didn't. We voted against his opponents. The first election I was old enough to understand was 1960, when the people voted against Nixon. Since then, with no exception I can think of, a Presidential candidate has never won because voters chose him. They've all won because voters rejected the other candidate. It always seems to be a matter of who we hate worse/distrust more/have less confidence in.

 

If "none of the above" had been on the ballot, we wouldn't have had a President for fifty years. And I'm beginning to think that wouldn't be so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We voted against his opponents

Sounds about the same as the UK elections lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If we would have listened to Obama and pulled out immediately....wait is he still for that? I keep up with his changes. No I think he changed that when he saw that the surge was working. Well anyway, if we'd have listened to his original idea, after we went in, Iraq would be a mess and the Dems would have had the lose they were hoping for. Thankfully, Bush did not listen and we have basically won.

 

False! Barack from the beginning have always says that he plan to withdraw responsibly. Must have him confuse with Kucinich or Ron Paul. I don't think you know your candidate.

That is why you should read 2 books pro and con of each candidate.

 

You know it's funny but when I've watched Presidential elections (and I've seen a few), I've never heard the call out for Puerto Rico or Guam when they were tallying the votes. To justify Obama's dumb gaffe by suggesting he's adding Puerto Rico and Guam is quite a stretch to say the least LOL.

 

I didn't hear Barack gaffe on that and only offer a possible explanation. The media have a habit of inventing lies of him being a Muslim and associated with a terrorist group when he was 9 years old. How would I know that the media lie about his gaffe on the 50 states? find me that video or transcript and back it up, and I can check it out.

 

The votes are tally after a close election, usually the media will pre-empt the official and final count. It has happen before where the wrong candidate was announce the final winner.

 

The only thing I see you do easily is distort facts. Unless you're telling me that you believe that Obama and Biden don't have any corporate backers? LOL

 

what are the fact I distort? be specific! and back it up!

I have stated that .9% of campaign funding are from the public for both party system, just to let you know how much is from the corporate versus the people. The only fame that Barack can claim is that he is by farthest the most funded by the public than any other candidate.

 

I don't know how we could own the media but I agree that it's not objective.

 

 

All the major cable television media across the nation are own by 6 large conglomerate Republican owners, and all of the major cities newspaper.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

 

What is interesting to note is that Time Warner lost some of their latin american station when they tried to oust Chavez in Venezuela, after Chavez took back his power and seize the news station and give it back to the people. They had original footage of what really happen the day the street took to violence, and showed the people the edited version and the unedited version. Much like we see Katie Couric showed an edited version of John McCain interviews violating their own rules of ethics of tampering the interviews with distortion of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously though, I don't think the majority of voters actually make an effort to look into anything. If the commercials say Obama is responsible for high gas prices then it must be true. If a book says Obama is a radical extremist muslim then it must be true.

 

 

The exact same argument can be said for politician who claim that they are going to provide good healthcare for all or that they're going to just raise the taxes of the rich.

 

Any informed person knows that trying to provide healthcare for everyone (including the millions of illegal alliens - we can't forget them) is living in a dream world. Unfortunately the same voters you speak of buy into this BULL.

 

Obama's a socialist and the fact that he's using his power to try to stifle free speech should be worrysome to everyone.

 

http://word.truthintheword.org/archives/1750

 

Obama is a lawyer and yes he is using legal means to stop someone from slandering him, but that doesn't mean he is a socialist for doing that. If someone says that your a terrorist and publish that in public then as an American you have a right to sue for slander if they can not prove that you are. In Obama case that he was nine years old makes his case strong that he was not a nine year old terrorist. I be more worried if your afraid of a nine year old boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he should have picked Billary.

 

LOL

 

I'm glad he didn't. Can't wait to see "The Chosen One" ascend the Greek Coliseum he's having built for himself LOL. I don't know who has a bigger ego, Obama or Biden.

 

McCain after he launch an attack of Obama claiming to be the chosen one he had his website scrub all reference of him being the chosen one. LOL

 

"don't throw rocks in glass houses" unless there is no door and you desperately need to get outside, then throw a rock.

 

http://mithridates.blogspot.com/2008/08/mc...elf-as-one.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False! Barack from the beginning have always says that he plan to withdraw responsibly. Must have him confuse with Kucinich or Ron Paul. I don't think you know your candidate.

That is why you should read 2 books pro and con of each candidate.

 

I'm sorry but this is absolutely not true. I remember it well. Because he opposed the war from the beginning, he's always stood for getting out right away. When the heaviest fighting in Iraq was going on and the leader of the Democratic party declared us the losers, Barrack was calling to pull the troops out.

 

Barrack was against the surge that finally gave us the victory we needed. I'll back up my statement with this article back in 2007 about Barracks irrisponsible pull out plan. Again, he was against the surge that has given us the success we are having. Had we followed Barrack's plan, Al Oaeda and Iran would be controlling Iraq right now. You can try to spin his foreign policy in his favor all you want. History proves otherwise.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1845084.htm

 

 

I didn't hear Barack gaffe on that and only offer a possible explanation. The media have a habit of inventing lies of him being a Muslim and associated with a terrorist group when he was 9 years old. How would I know that the media lie about his gaffe on the 50 states? find me that video or transcript and back it up, and I can check it out.

 

The votes are tally after a close election, usually the media will pre-empt the official and final count. It has happen before where the wrong candidate was announce the final winner.

 

Hmm... I posted the link with his exact words I thought. If you don't see this link then it was blocked.

 

LOL just listened to it again and he even refers to visting the United States. Too comical. I think a president should know how many states he's going to be making important decisions about. Don't you Vern?

 

 

In case it doesn't show up again.....www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

 

what are the fact I distort? be specific! and back it up!

I have stated that .9% of campaign funding are from the public for both party system, just to let you know how much is from the corporate versus the people. The only fame that Barack can claim is that he is by farthest the most funded by the public than any other candidate.

 

Sorry you are right. I should have bolded the comment however I'd like you to back up your assertion about the low scores and "Maverick" statement.

 

McCain is much like Bush in a way that they both are malleable as far as being told what to do by the corporates.

 

You even hear of a guy named George Soros who's basically bought the Democratic party including Barrack Obama. He's a big leftwing progressive billionaire who through serragate organizations donates huge amounts of money to the Democratic party. Read up on him. He's a big CORPORATE guy. He funds moveon.org. I heard a report once that because Soros hate's Fox news, he gave orders to the Democratic party to not appear on Fox at one time. Only 2 Democrats disobeyed his order. Nancy Pelosi I believe was one and I can't remember the other.

 

 

All the major cable television media across the nation are own by 6 large conglomerate Republican owners, and all of the major cities newspaper.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

 

Not sure what you're trying to say with this info. I really don't care who own's the "major cable television media". I DO know that the main media sources are leftwing biased or leaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is a lawyer and yes he is using legal means to stop someone from slandering him,

 

It's not slander if it's true. You REALLY need to get your facts straight. He's not using legal means, he using senatorial power to ask the Justice Department to intervene. If he tried to take it to court the judge would laugh at him. He's abusing his power to stifle free speech. Here's a cut from the article I posted.

 

DENVER (AP) - Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 “Swift Boat” campaign.Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

 

 

but that doesn't mean he is a socialist for doing that. If someone says that your a terrorist and publish that in public then as an American you have a right to sue for slander if they can not prove that you are. In Obama case that he was nine years old makes his case strong that he was not a nine year old terrorist. I be more worried if your afraid of a nine year old boy.

 

Rustar, did you EVEN read the article? It's not about a book. It's about an "ADVERTISEMENT". Go back and read the article so you get your facts straight. The article doesn't call Barrack a terrorist. It brings up the fact that he is LINKED to a terrorist. Every thing the ad says is true according to reports I've heard. Can you imagine if McCain had this link? The New York Times, MSNBC, NBC would be all over it. I can't believe FOX caved to it. CNN I'd expect.

 

 

The socialist comment wasn't about him stifling free speech. It was a reference to his political policies. He wants to redistribute wealth. Sorry but that's right out of the book socialism.

 

You claim to know so much but if you can't figure out Obama's a socialist then I don't know what to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I am no fan of Obama, but let's get off the "57" states thing. He obviously simply mis-spoke. "I've been to 57 states, one more to visit. Not going to Alaska and Hawaii." He obviously meant to say that he has visited 47 states so far, with one to go and two they are not going to visit.

 

Attack his position if you want. Look at his voting record if you want, but let's get off the 57 state thing. It was just a mistake and I am sure that McCain has made mistakes in his speeches too. It happens.

 

Although I tend to vote Republican, I am a moderate and can easily see the value of positions on both sides in many subjects. I really wish politics hadn't degraded into this big mud slinging contest. Let's get back to statesmen working hard to help our country and not concentrating on their own back pocket. Selfless leaders who want to govern, putting their constituents positions above their own. I don't want to hear attacks on the other party. I want to hear how you plan to lead, to fix things, to help make lives better. Give me real answers, not sound bites.

 

Unfortunately, political views are like religious beliefs. We learn our positions at a young age (for or against), typically from our parents (but not always) and I have not met many people who have changed their position once established. Thus the "I'm right and you're wrong" arguments commence, and nothing much gets done.

 

Oh well, back to animating.

 

-Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*lol* It is really funny... you must have more fun than we when you are electing someone... at out place it is only about: "Is he able to do what he claims and is what he claims something that is near your own wishes..."

 

At your place it is about every single person in his bloodline, if he drinks the right coffee from the right brand and if he really likes fruitloops better than Brahms... ;)

 

And it could be so easy:

The only question is - Will this man/woman fight for my wishes or at least is s/he claiming to be closer to my opinions than the other guys?

-> if so: Vote for him, if not dont.

 

We can't do anything else.

 

I never understood why Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) was more or less thrown out of the house in shame. I mean, Monica had nothing to do with his ability to rule the country. America was economically (and military, but that didnt change much) strong, he and therefore America had good relations with other nations in the world and he was much more liked and lets face it: he was much smarter than bush jr.

 

But he did something bad, which if I am not guessing wrong at least 33% of the people who were most pissed off because of his sexual mistakes, did themselfs, and than he wasnt anything of that anymore?

 

What happend here? Was he another person from one day to the other? No. He was the exact same guy many people liked and many people applauded one day before. The only difference was, that people had found out about his private life, which had nothing to do with his skills for which he was elected to be the president of the US.

 

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*lol* It is really funny... you must have more fun than we when you are electing someone... at out place it is only about: "Is he able to do what he claims and is what he claims something that is near your own wishes..."

 

At your place it is about every single person in his bloodline, if he drinks the right coffee from the right brand and if he really likes fruitloops better than Brahms... ;)

 

And it could be so easy:

The only question is - Will this man/woman fight for my wishes or at least is s/he claiming to be closer to my opinions than the other guys?

-> if so: Vote for him, if not dont.

 

We can't do anything else.

 

I never understood why Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) was more or less thrown out of the house in shame. I mean, Monica had nothing to do with his ability to rule the country. America was economically (and military, but that didnt change much) strong, he and therefore America had good relations with other nations in the world and he was much more liked and lets face it: he was much smarter than bush jr.

 

But he did something bad, which if I am not guessing wrong at least 33% of the people who were most pissed off because of his sexual mistakes, did themselfs, and than he wasnt anything of that anymore?

 

What happend here? Was he another person from one day to the other? No. He was the exact same guy many people liked and many people applauded one day before. The only difference was, that people had found out about his private life, which had nothing to do with his skills for which he was elected to be the president of the US.

 

*Fuchur*

 

You guys wouldn't consider who your candidate is associated with? I don't know how you feel about Putin (I think he's a thug myself) but let's say a candidate who's running for Prime minister was found out to have ties to Putin or was getting large financial donations (if you're allow to anyway) from a suspected terrorist organization, you wouldn't take that into consideration before voting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... lets face it: It is more than implausible, that due to his entired life, his political career and his fight against clinton (this time hillary ;) ), noone found out about any direct or indirect connections to a terrorist. The democratic camp would be damn stupid if they really would have overseen something like that. I highly highly doubt that. So it is very likley that this statement was one of those "If I say it, and demand it afterwards, the damage is still done..." once. That means: Even if something is not true or at least very very overinterpreted, people will remember it anyway.

 

You will stand at the electionoffice with a pencil (or any kind of electronic voting-sytem... dont know what is used in the US this time) and you will have some short phrases in your mind... and for many it will be one of these half-truthes. So it is just another manipulating comment from one or the other lobby or camp to harm the other one.

 

If someone would say: "He recently found a pocket on the street and only gave back half the money which was in it." it would be much more believeable than something like that. If you ask me, that is much more relevant than any of these kinds of statements above.

 

Oh, just for the record: I dont like Medwedew/Putin.

I think they are establishing a dictatorship there for Putin (at least offically Putin isnt the president at the moment) and he is too much of a hardliner for me despite the fact that democracies are at ANY circumstances the better choice. The problems at Georgia werent their fault alone (or their strategy, depending of which point of view you have) but they were responsibile for a large part of the conflict... and if I am not wrong, there will be more problems with it again.

But lets face it: The rockets in Poland werent nice of the US-government too. They are not very effective, won't give much of a protection against attacks and they were a open provocation against Russia, which isn't very intelligent with a hardliner on the top.

 

So George and Vladimir may cause new crises in the short future, because both are more or less hardliners. McCain is the sequel of Bush... so may the force be with us all if McCain is elected...

I highly hope that a democrate will win the elections... we all need a moderate, thoughtful person for such conflicts and someone who can politically stand up against a very clever (evil, but clever) guy like Putin.

 

And dont say something like "But the terrorism..."

I dont think anyone still thinks, that millitary power can handle terrorism... it is about thinking and understanding.

 

Think about it: Someone thinks, there is a terrorist in a village. There is no terrorist there, but because someone moves too fast, an soldier shoots a young boy. The young boy has 3 other brothers... so you created from no terrorist 3 once and a whole village with people who will tell their children, that they have to be careful about the soldiers or that they are evil. Nicely done.

And exactly that is happening. People get angry if you harm their family or friends... and even people who didnt have anything against the soldiers will hate them. Because a friend, a brother or sister or the parents got killed.

And it will never end... people will be killed and other will be angry about it. The same is happening on both sides. In the end, noone knows why they started fighting... they will only know that the friend was killed and that this has to be repayed.

 

It is a bit like the fight in Ireland. Over a decade people shot eachothers, fighted against each other and killed manymany people in a civil war without any chances to succeed. Today, after manymany years people understood what happend and like that there was no future. They are now trying to talk to each other and it seems to work out.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly hope that a democrate will win the elections... we all need a moderate, thoughtful person for such conflicts and someone who can politically stand up against a very clever (evil, but clever) guy like Putin.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

 

That has been my point all along. Recently the US has totally rejected Russia's statement that WE manipulated the violence in Georgia for "political purposes". Russian is trying to use our local politics to justify their attack on Georgia. Bush and McCain are both "hard liners", warmongers to use a really strong word... but I think it applies. I agree we need someone with a level head.

 

Being "diplomatic" does NOT mean being a wimp. You can still be tough, we would still have our military if the absolute need arises, but we can't have a president who threatens military action every time someone makes a move we don't like. It makes US "feel good" to do that... but the other side doesn't see it the same way. Think about it in your own head. When someone is "mean" or "bad" to you and you make threats or get angry, it makes YOU feel good. It has NO effect on the other side. The emotional response is completely different.

 

Obama says in his speeches one of the important things he learned from his mother was to put himself in the other persons shoes. Imagine how they feel when they are being bullied or pushed. When you can REALLY do that, really imagine how it feels to be on the other side when someone is making bold threats and demands you can better understand the situation. That is DIPLOMACY. You know the other side may not deserve such consideration but you have to at least TRY to find some non violent way to resolve conflicts. If we don't try then... my god... there will be new wars and conflicts popping up every other day.

 

If the US continues to be a bully in the world's school yard... no one will listen to us. Constantly making threats of military attack isn't going to solve anything. We need to become more of the negotiators and diplomats. Of course, terrorists are a different topic. They aren't from one country, they don't behave like rational individuals, they don't respond to diplomacy. I have no answers or suggestions for dealing with terrorists.

 

-vern

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the US continues to be a bully in the world's school yard... no one will listen to us. Constantly making threats of military attack isn't going to solve anything. We need to become more of the negotiators and diplomats. Of course, terrorists are a different topic. They aren't from one country, they don't behave like rational individuals, they don't respond to diplomacy. I have no answers or suggestions for dealing with terrorists.

 

-vern

 

I think the best way to handle that is to cut their supplies...

if people are no longer that angry about the US, there will be less people going this route.

The problem will not be totally solved with that, but it can be alleviated.

 

The problem: It will need some time...

 

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how's that animation coming, Vern? Is it live yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I screwed up the last render totally... and now I have a huge project I'm working on that pays actual dollars... priorities priorities. I keep forgetting to start the new render when I go to sleep. I am usually so tired I barely make it to my bed before passing out... when I wake I slap my head and say "Dang! I should have started that rendering!". ;)

 

I am thinking the moment has passed. It probably isn't relevant anymore.

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am thinking the moment has passed. It probably isn't relevant anymore.

 

I don't think the sell-by date on that is until Nov 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am thinking the moment has passed. It probably isn't relevant anymore.

 

Time to start focusing on McCain's VP candidate - Sarah Palin, 44, Governor of Alaska, wants to drill, drill, drill to boost Alaska's revenue, says polar bears are not endangered, former beauty contestant, evangelical christian, wants to outlaw ALL abortions (no ifs, and, buts) - She said McCain and she have only met once or twice and barely know each other - She claimed she hasn't been paying attention to Iraq war, is under investigation for something about having ex-brother-in-law fired or hired (forget which it is).

 

In case McCain croaks, she would be next in line for presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK--- Well, we know Biden is 'owned' by the credit companies... has she caved to any corporates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
has she caved to any corporates?

 

She is even more of an unknown so far than Obama was ... The media has yet to "vette" her, and they will be sure to be doing some digging around...We just have to sit back and wait. I can hear them shoveling now.

 

Sounds to me she's for drilling, and has no perspective on long term future environmental impacts, is focused mainly on the benefits to the state of Alaska, and does not have a regard for scientific evidence, nor have the capacity for critical thinking, and knows nothing about international politics, nor the Iraq war (yikes!).

 

And that's in my first 15 minutes of reading, observing - so, of course - who knows what the truth is. Much more needs to come out.

 

This was a political decision on the part of the republicans, they had to go with someone that seemed different than the old white guy.

 

She will not attract those who were disappointed that Hillary didn't get the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She said today she WILL get the votes of the disappointed Hillary supporters.

 

Mike Moore on Count Down tonight said the republicans must think American women are stupid if you just throw any old woman into the mix and automatically they will support her regardless of her politics. She is basically against everything that Hilary and her supporters are for. I think if the democrats were asked to pick the worse VP candidate for McCain... she would have been in the top 3 at least.

 

Look at this woman... listen to her politics, her beliefs... and imagine her in your brain... really imagine it... it's real... imagine her as THE FREAKING PRESIDENT! I can't do it. I start to get anxious and can't breath. Palin as president is like a SNL sketch or one of those stupid satire movies. It would make a great sit com... not a great reality.

 

Unfortunately for me... She is SOOOOO FFREAKING HOT I may just vote for McCain so I get to watch her on TV more. Maybe if she wore more low cut tops, left a few buttons undone... man she could pull in the horny man vote big time.

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately for me... She is SOOOOO FFREAKING HOT I may just vote for McCain so I get to watch her on TV more. Maybe if she wore more low cut tops, left a few buttons undone... man she could pull in the horny man vote big time.

 

There, there Vern. The swimsuit competion will show up on You tube pretty soon. You won't have to vote for her. Just make sure it's a legit website link you're clicking on, when googling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are saying it's Elaine from Seinfeld, others are saying it's Tina Fey from SNL... I'm thinking it may be Mary Anne from Gilligan's Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK--- Well, we know Biden is 'owned' by the credit companies... has she caved to any corporates?

 

I heard a report tonight that she actually took on corruption in Alaska and ousted the corrupt Governor. I know nothing about her and I disagree with her stance if she's against all abortions but I'm a conservative who believes in capitalism and Barrack's vision is socialism and unrealistic and for him to say he's going to get us off of oil (as he claimed in his speech) in 10 years, shows he's either niave or just saying what people want to hear to get elected. unfortunately uninformed people will fall for it.

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people are saying it's Elaine from Seinfeld, others are saying it's Tina Fey from SNL... I'm thinking it may be Mary Anne from Gilligan's Island.

 

LOL she kinda looks like Dawn Wells hehe

 

Definitely looks better without the glasses

 

Mary_ann.jpgsarah.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She will not attract those who were disappointed that Hillary didn't get the nomination.

 

I don't know about this. I heard 30% of Hillary voters have said that they are voting for McCain out of spite because of nominating Obama and not Hillary. That's even before she was announced. The fact that she's a woman might sway some but who knows. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly hope that a democrate will win the elections... we all need a moderate, thoughtful person for such conflicts and someone who can politically stand up against a very clever (evil, but clever) guy like Putin.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

 

That has been my point all along. Recently the US has totally rejected Russia's statement that WE manipulated the violence in Georgia for "political purposes". Russian is trying to use our local politics to justify their attack on Georgia. Bush and McCain are both "hard liners", warmongers to use a really strong word... but I think it applies. I agree we need someone with a level head.

 

Being "diplomatic" does NOT mean being a wimp. You can still be tough, we would still have our military if the absolute need arises, but we can't have a president who threatens military action every time someone makes a move we don't like. It makes US "feel good" to do that... but the other side doesn't see it the same way. Think about it in your own head. When someone is "mean" or "bad" to you and you make threats or get angry, it makes YOU feel good. It has NO effect on the other side. The emotional response is completely different.

 

Obama says in his speeches one of the important things he learned from his mother was to put himself in the other persons shoes. Imagine how they feel when they are being bullied or pushed. When you can REALLY do that, really imagine how it feels to be on the other side when someone is making bold threats and demands you can better understand the situation. That is DIPLOMACY. You know the other side may not deserve such consideration but you have to at least TRY to find some non violent way to resolve conflicts. If we don't try then... my god... there will be new wars and conflicts popping up every other day.

 

If the US continues to be a bully in the world's school yard... no one will listen to us. Constantly making threats of military attack isn't going to solve anything. We need to become more of the negotiators and diplomats. Of course, terrorists are a different topic. They aren't from one country, they don't behave like rational individuals, they don't respond to diplomacy. I have no answers or suggestions for dealing with terrorists.

 

-vern

 

-vern

 

I know this is going to seem like I'm for war but I don't believe ANYONE is for war. I certainly am not. However I am for keeping a strong offense and defense especially with terrorism still a threat, Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Pakistan having nukes with an unstable government and now Russia flexing their muscle, I do not want a weak country. Obama's plan is to gut the military, stop ALL nuclear testing, and cut funding for missle defense. This would be crazy in the world that we live in today.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

 

I'd love to sing coombiyah and believe that Iran would give up their ambition for a nuke if we just sit with them and say please don't do that but it's not reality. And as much as I'd like to believe Obama is the chosen one and will get all the rogue nations in the world in one great big group hug, I don't.

 

We need a strong military to let these countries know not to mess with us. Unfortunately being more powerful than them is all they respect. They look at kindness as weakness. Gut our millitary and show them we are weak, and they will take advantage of it. We saw a perfect example of it when Carter was in office with Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between having a strong offense and knowing when to use it, and just throwing in the gauntlet at the drop of a hat. I'm not talking about walking into a potential negotiation with another country bearing cookies and tea. My feeling is that the threat of military force MUST be kept as THE ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT or it will lose all its impact as a deterrent. That has already happened. Every country knows now that the US military is stretched to the limit. We need to get the majority of our forces back from Irag. Replenish it and then NOT USE IT SO MUCH.

 

A military is necessary. I don't think the US shouldn't have a strong military. I just don't think we need to throw that out as the only option every time some country saber rattling or does something we don't agree with. Sometimes NOT showing force is the right thing to do. We haven't done that in years. Every situation, North Korea, Iran... it's always "Military action is not off the table." Rumors start about when we are going to bomb Iran (McCain singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran") We shouldn't even say that ever, even if it is true. It sends the wrong message. It makes us a bully.

 

The whole conflict with Russia and Georgia is a result of Bush's bullying of Russia. Pushing them constantly. Military force in the mid east, missile defense in Poland etc etc. Russia is pissed off with a capital "P". The front page of one of their newspapers had a huge middle finger. It represents Russia telling the west to go ____ themselves. Russia doesn't care about sanctions. The west needs Russia more than they need us.

 

That is a direct result of our arrogant bullying attitude we have used for the last 8 years. If it doesn't stop it isn't going to end well. We are on the verge of another cold war because of the republicans and George Bush. You can say "Well, McCain isn't George Bush." but that's a load of crap. McCain has followed along with Bush's plan all along. He votes with him on everything and agrees with his policies. Even now his statements about what is going on in Georgia are bullying tactics.

 

Putin directly referred to McCain when he accused the US of intentionally inciting violence in Georgia to "Give one candidate an advantage over the other".

 

We have to give Russian something to feel good about. In the past we skirted the fact that Russia lost some of it's "power" when it changed its course. We didn't rub their faces in it. Now we just keep pushing them. Putin is not the kind of leader to push around. He's a tough guy. He won't take it... and now he's had it. The situation in Russia is the result of Bush's failed international policies. Enough saber rattling. Let's find a new way to deal with these situations.

 

In our current situation, our military couldn't handle much more conflict. We are stretched so thin right now. And everyone knows this.

 

--------------

I don't know about this. I heard 30% of Hillary voters have said that they are voting for McCain out of spite because of nominating Obama and not Hillary. That's even before she was announced. The fact that she's a woman might sway some but who knows. Time will tell.

 

Maybe BEFORE the convention but no longer. I don't know how much of the convention you watched but Hilary and Bill nailed it. They were clear about their support. From what I heard, yes, Hilary supporters were FURIOUS. So angry and heartbroken they couldn't stand the thought of supporting Obama. That will pass. They spent years working for here campaign. they so hoped to see her as the first woman president. Ultimately most will come to the conclusion that Barack represents most of the same values and beliefs that Hilary has.

 

The new poll numbers have Obama ahead by 8 points. And this was taken before McCain announced his VP.

 

Barack's speech on Thursday was viewed by 39 million people. More than the Oscars, or the last night of the Olympics. More than the season finale of American Idol... but that last one doesn't really excite me so much. All those people saw that speech. Even if you don't support Barack, that speech was powerful. I don't think McCain could deliver his own message (whatever it is) as powerfully as Obama did thursday night.

 

Now I'm anxious to watch the Republican convention. Can't wait to see what their focus will be now that the "experience" issue is totally off the table.

 

I also can't wait to see the debates. I just can't imagine how Palin will hold up against Biden. I don't think she has the experience to perform under that kind of pressure especially from Joe Biden. I don't think she has been "tested" enough. Barack has already shown what he can do. In a debate the Obama/Biden ticket is going to be hard to beat. We have to wait and see.

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are too certain that all people wanna harm the US. Even if the Iran had the bomb, it wouldnt be clear that they are trying to use it. And the argument of cheap energy is although there. Why should only the strong western states today have cheap energy? Energy means a better way for the future and ANY nation wants that. It however is a risk and I am not really for the nulcear-powerstations in Iran (even without the bomb it is quite a risk to have those in a country without a high educationlevel) but sooner or later we will have to handle the risk... and in this discussions, there is ALWAYS the oil-factor involved till the fusion-plants are totally invented (they are already on their way).

 

And as vern said: Wise, intelligent and moderate doesnt mean weak. It means, that you are not only driven by your own fears and that you are only using weapons, if there is no other way out of the problem. I dont like a world were wars ("wars" - in Iraq about 30.000 iraqis were killed while the real war. About 30 (I think it where even less) US-soldiers lost their life there. About 30. 30.000 / 30. And many of them by friendly fire. Can you honestly say this is a war? This is like a fight between a heavyweight boxer and a 3 year old. And Bush said: "Hey, be careful Mister Klitschko. Don't wonder too much about the diapers: He has got quite a punch..."

 

Iran isn't a bigger problem too. Even if they got the bomb, they would be damn stupid to try to use it. The whole world would connect there and they had even problems to stop the Iraqis. What should they do against the Nato? They are just like most nations: They think the bomb will protect them because they are frightend that something like the iraqi-war could happen to them too.

Despite of that: Till now they are only talking about a non-military use of the cheap energy. I am not certain what they really want, but I am although not certain about statements of a hardliner-government about a country which has easy accessible oil-reserves.

 

The problems are not the countries today, the problems are caused by terrorists... small groups of people which were anyhow pissed off or which are just damn stupid and/or fatuous.

 

And back to the rocket-shield... it will not be half that efficient like it was said and it will raise the need of itself by being itself. Do you really want a rocketshield which is only necessary because its construction offended other nations? There are not many countries which have the technical knowhow to built long-range-rockets. So Iran wouldnt even be able to bomb the US if they had such intentions. The bigger problem is China and Russia but they are stronger and as that a war against them wouldnt be half that "funny" as one against a small country would be.

 

The best way to save yourself is to not give other people a real reason to be fighted if it is not really necessary. Every security system is breakeable if someone just wants to do it. You could built thousands of anti-missle-launchers, etc. and while you do, a small boat with a suitcasebomb passes next to you and waves at you. (This is a metaphor, not a real situation...)

 

Before you get your gun out: Think about the problems you will cause and think about if it is really necessary to fight or if a "small boquet of flowers" wouldnt be enough to prevent a war with thousands and tenthousands of dieing and suffering people. Maybe the counterpart isn't trying to get his Colt out... maybe he is only looking for his cigaretts. You will see it after you shot him, but can you really live with it if it wasnt a gun but only his lighter he was trying to get out of the pocket? Not only american soldiers have families which will be very sad about his/her dead.

 

So if it is really necessary: Fight with all you got! Get the attackers down and defend your way, your family, your house. But only if it is really necessary!!!

It is about asking questions, being fair and thinking before shooting. That is all that is asked for.

 

In more than one situation Bush didnt do that and I would be happy if the next president of the US would be better at this. If you think Mc Cain is better, elect him. I am not that involved that I can say everything about the situation in the US... I only see that for example Bill Clinton was more of a thinker too me than Bush is. And dont forget: Clinton had its crises too and he had to fight too (Battle of Kosovo, for example). And I think he did better. He got the world on his site, he tried to really handle it without weapons, and when he saw that it didnt work out, he fighted. War is always dirty and not "funny", but this one was necessary.

 

If Obama is in anyway a bit less like bush and a bit more like Clinton and Mc Cain is more like Bush, I would be very certain where I would put my cross on the votingpaper.

 

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern, if you're for a strong military then how can support a guy who's going to gut it?

 

I disagree with the notion that a country that financies and supports terrorism and convinces morons to blow themselves up to kill innocent people are only developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran is governed by wack jobs. Ahmadinejad has repeated many times that Israel will soon be eliminated. This sounds like a peaceful country? You REALLY think we can reason with people who believe that they will be greeted with 24 virgins if they martyr themselves? I've offten wondered what it would have been like if ancient cultures had the technology and weapons we have today. How would the people like the ancient Romans have handled TV, the net and nukes? Well if we keep doing nothing we're going to find out with Iran in the case of having nukes. They may be modernized to some degree but their whole ideology is stuck in the 9th century. We are not going to negotiate with Iran and if they do develop nuclear capability, it won't be for clean energy. It will be to have a nuclear bomb.

 

If "The Chosen One" Obama is elected and follows through with his dangerous plans to basically make us a 3rd world country because he don't agree with capitolism (He's definitely a socialist), at least I can say I didn't vote for him hehe.

 

One comment about Clinton...

 

It was partly HIS administrations failings that lead to us being attacked on 911. Clinton's failure to treat terrorism as a law enforcement and not a military problem prevented him from acting against Al Qaeda when he should have. So to hope Obama is like Clinton (at least on foreign policy) is not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now acknowledge that Obama made a gaffe on the number of states. And it does now make more sense that he meant to say 47 states, when he pointed out that he was advised to not see the other 2 states. And thanks for the links BTW.

 

We disagree that the surge has work, as it is lately falling apart in that region. If anything the numbers of Al quieda has increase with our presence in that region.

 

When Obama propose a withdrawal back in 2007 he plan on a responsible withdrawal well into March of 2008. That isn't a immediate withdrawal. And just because he was against going into the war from beginning doesn't mean he supported an immediate withdrawal. I have a beef with Obama on that issue because I am for an immediate withdrawal, and I am frustrated with Obama for not going along with that as Kucinich and Ron Paul views. If anything we now have a very weak national security and I feel Putin is now taking advantage of that. The more you wave the military strength to the other country makes the other country more violent and dangerous.

 

We disagree with how to obtain peace, and I have to side with Jesus Christ that turning weapon into plowshare is really the way to go. You have faith in peace and believe that love is stronger than hate to abide with the teaching of Christ, which is something that the religious right winger don't embrace.

 

I think you would benefit from reading Dr Sues on the butter battle, than listening to Bill O'Rielly, no spin zone. I do recognize the Soros attack, and yes I am referring to the advertisement as slander for linking Barrack to a terrorist group when he was nine years old. Doesn't the age of Obama of being nine seem ludicrous in linking him with a terrorist, or that he was register as a Muslim as a boy? Even if he was a Muslim at age 30 and he decided to convert to Christianity, I would never say but he was once a Muslim and his Christian faith is weaken by that. In his case he was a Christian as a young man and was raise by his devout Christian mother.

 

"McCain graduated from the Naval Academy near the very bottom of his class, and some were surprised he graduated at all. Wednesday he said the fact that he is now a candidate for president shows that in America, anything is possible."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/02/...olitics_3991081

 

John McCain as a senator is far different from John McCain as a candidate and voting 95% as John claim he did with George Bush doesn't make him that much of a maverick. The left wing media is giving John an extra 5% in his favor. So if you really are for the income distribution of eliminating the middle class as your definition of the being a anti-socialist country in favor of the 1% being richer than the whole 99% put together, then vote for John McCain!

 

Which do you think is a bigger gaffe, getting the number of states wrong or referring to anyone who makes less than 5 million dollar as middle class?

 

I give him that he wasn't serious about his comment but he was out of touch making it a joke. Obama has a better tax break for the lower 60% of the population than McCain. If you are making over $200,000 than McCain should be the guy you vote for as you'll get a better deal from there and on upward in the income. I take it that building roads and govt infrastructure as being socialist. $3 Million dollar for study on DNA bears have more to do with Hibernation than paternity test. That expenditure at this time needs to be reexamine. But it is nothing compared to the spending of military versus social infrastructure. According to wikipedia "The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [7] and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. (Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is not adjusted for purchasing power parity.) The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority)."

 

This is where the Dr Suess story of the Butter Battle come in handy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with this race is that its turning into a popularity vote....

most of the young, clueless, I'm for change just for change, P-Diddy-Vote or Die crew, is going

to vote for Obama just because he is a minority without really thinking about what he brings to

the table as a presidential candidate.... and its not really all that impressive.

 

btw, Obama is not black, he is mulato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This must be embarassing, she actually liked the idea of Obama winning Alaska...

 

Palin on Obama

 

 

And someone in the Alaska GOP didn't get the talking points e-mail...

 

Alaska State Senate President Lyda Green ®: “She’s not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she’s done to this state. What would she do to the nation?” (Green is from Palin’s home town of Wasilla.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vern, if you're for a strong military then how can support a guy who's going to gut it?

 

Oh please. He isn't going to "gut it". There is nothing in Obama's plan to gut the military. That is a huge gigantic in your face exaggeration. He can't "gut" the military. He wants to SAVE the military. He wants to make it stronger by cutting back on waste and stupid useless misguided wars.

 

I disagree with the notion that a country that financies and supports terrorism and convinces morons to blow themselves up to kill innocent people are only developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran is governed by wack jobs. Ahmadinejad has repeated many times that Israel will soon be eliminated. This sounds like a peaceful country? You REALLY think we can reason with people who believe that they will be greeted with 24 virgins if they martyr themselves?

 

Oh please! Once again you are mixing up your facts. Afghanistan had the terrorists. We didn't finish the job there. Irag NEVER ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES. If Bush's concern was for the PEOPLE of Irag that should have been his only reason to attack. If he wanted the oil he should have made it clear. He and his administration LIED about terrorists and WMD in Iraq. This is FACT proven over and over and over.

 

If "The Chosen One" Obama is elected and follows through with his dangerous plans to basically make us a 3rd world country because he don't agree with capitolism (He's definitely a socialist), at least I can say I didn't vote for him hehe.

 

Obama is NOT a socialist. Also, what is so wrong with a little tiny bit of socialism? People have that word confused with something else. Canada, France, have the BEST "socialized" health care in the world. Yes it has some problems BUT IT FREAKING WORKS. It isn't perfect but it's TEN TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE. The administration is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies. Do you realize that 60% of all health care casts ARE PAPER WORK? Yes, forms. Something like 60% of employees that work in medical health care industry only fill out and process forms. Every freaking insurance company has a DIFFERENT FORM. This is because there are no rules, no one telling them to streamline and save money.

 

Once again, Obama is not a "socialist" and you really need to do some research on that word. You don't really know what it means in todays world.

 

One comment about Clinton...

 

It was partly HIS administrations failings that lead to us being attacked on 911. Clinton's failure to treat terrorism as a law enforcement and not a military problem prevented him from acting against Al Qaeda when he should have. So to hope Obama is like Clinton (at least on foreign policy) is not a good thing.

 

You are repeating the propaganda and lies perpetrated by those who support the current administration. Yes Clinton may have missed the boat but he didn't have hindsight to know. AND HE TOLD THE BUSH WHITEHOUSE TO WATCH OUT FOR BIN LADEN! He warned them. When the Clinton administration left office they told Bush and his people that Al quaida was a bad thing and to keep an eye on them. Bush ignored those warnings. Maybe because he hated Bill so much who knows. Maybe because he didn't agree with it. Doesn't matter now, water under the bridge.

 

911 happened a year into the Bush presidency. Bush had nearly a YEAR to "fix" any mistakes that Clinton made. Maybe if Gore had won in 2000 he would have LISTENED to the warnings instead of ignoring them. Don't try to shift blame of 911 onto Clinton. That's just ridiculous. 911 was no one's "fault" except the terrorists who perpetrated it. It happened. It was tragic. Our whole government dropped the ball INCLUDING Bush.

 

 

Get your facts straight... not much point in asking that because whenever people like you hear the truth you deny it as a cover up or conspiracy. The truth just doesn't work.

 

Obama is not a socialist, he is not a muslim, and he isn't going to "gut" the military or turn us into a "third world country".

McCain's money did not come from organized crime, and he is not funded by Alquaida and he is not "just" a wrinkly old man.

 

Both candidates could run this country without a hitch. I am sure of that. My concern is HOW they will do it. What will happen in the long term? One has a status quo philosophy. The other wants to try a new approach. Neither idea will destroy America. We're to strong for that. A single president couldn't destroy America, although Bush has made a good start. We need some CHANGE. And that word is not some "catch phrase" made up by advertising consultants... it means what it says... CHANGE. We need a new different direction.

 

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...this sounds like a peaceful country? You REALLY think we can reason with people who believe that they will be greeted with 24 virgins...

 

No it doesnt, but they may be dangerous, but they are not stupid. They although know, that nuclear weapons will effect them too and that this will be a reason to fight them.

I cant say what is going on exactly, only future will tell us, but dont believe everything that is told to you on the TV. Republicanic governments are often ruling the country by rising the fear in the people.

 

Second thing: You are talking about the terroristic cells, not a state. If the state would have been acting like a real terrorist, it would long be in war with the NATO. You cant set any state on the world at the same level as Al Qaida, ETA or the Hamas. They may have other opinions but you cant say that a state who has another opinion is automaticly evil.

 

And the common number is 42 virigins, not 24. And this is more like a joke by the western countries. What really motivates the terrorists to do what they do is, that their families will gain some sort of a rent from the terror-organisation. It is more or less about money and to help their families out. Yes they may have the motivation to get something in heaven, but it is not the only motivation for them.

 

But again: Mc Cain is not the only person who can fight a war. Obama can although do that, if it is necessary.

The US has the largest military eta of ALL the countries in the world since many many years. The US already got such a high level there, that no other country can stand up with the US there. And you have to see it in another way: Every dollar which is given to the army is always a dollar less for the rest. That means: Education will suffer, infrastructure will suffer, economics will suffer and so on.

 

So even while the US has more weapons especially more advanced weapons than any other nations, the us is still spending SO much money on it.

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So even while the US has more weapons especially more advanced weapons than any other nations, the us is still spending SO much money on it.

*Fuchur*

 

Thats no reason to stop the advance of technology. It will be our saviour from ourselves.... and from whatever "life" will

cross our paths.

 

lets face it, the ability to defend ones self is the most important element to peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats no reason to stop the advance of technology. It will be our saviour from ourselves.... and from whatever "life" will

cross our paths.

 

lets face it, the ability to defend ones self is the most important element to peace.

 

I agree! what half of us disagree is whether the ability to pre-empt an attack before it happen to create peace, and holding people under a barrel to promote Democracy.

 

What George Washington did was unprecedented in treating the captive of the revolutionary war with humanity and no torture. Amazing scholar and ahead of his time, or not degenerative of our times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think George Washington would not support EITHER party, Democratic or Republican, if he could see it. He would most likely be an independent. He was probably the ONLY president who absolutely did not want the job.

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think George Washington would not support EITHER party, Democratic or Republican, if he could see it. He would most likely be an independent. He was probably the ONLY president who absolutely did not want the job.

 

-vern

 

In his farewell address he actually warned us against political parties.

 

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eisenhower's farewell seems to be on the mark also

 

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

 

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Washington would be an independent and there is something said for those that do not want the job end up being best for the job.

 

On the socialist calling card for those that want to deal with poverty. It seem that whenever a candidate talk about redistribution of wealth to deal with poverty that ones become a socialist. Socialist become a cue card for the republican meaning that one is for helping out the poor. Just as Elite become a calling card as being to uppity for the average American. We talk about middle class and the rich, but somehow talking about the poor become a dirty word as they are poor because they are lazy or stupid. This year I was blown away at how many line up at the soup kitchen in Portland. It is far bigger than I have ever seen it in my life anywhere in the USA. As for my Christian belief, I don't think there is anything wrong about helping out the poor and it doesn't make you be a socialist, but makes you a decent human being with compassion for someone other than yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats no reason to stop the advance of technology. It will be our saviour from ourselves.... and from whatever "life" will

cross our paths.

 

lets face it, the ability to defend ones self is the most important element to peace.

 

I dont say to stop it, but do you really have to spend THAT much money on it? I mean, the military eta is one of the largest or the largest in the US. Poverty, no real healthcare-system, high illegal imigration, many different other problems but what gets addressed most? The thing that is already the most advanced and could easily be supported with a bit less without loosing any advantages...

 

For what? The US wont be attack by any country directly anyway. It would be suicide without any possible success and there is no country which will try that. The only thing that is possible to happen is, that the US is doing a agression war or that terrorists will come and try to attack a city in america. Where do you need a new tank for, if the real danger is a guy with a bomb in his suitcase in New York or a airplane? The new tank is just useless in such situations...

 

It is about being able to defend your country, but even more important is to have something that is worth defending, dont you think?

 

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its easier to catch up with poverty issues and health care than it is to catch up technology and militarily wise.

Especially militarily.

 

Being able to defend ones country is by far the most important thing. with out it, it is certainly in mans capabilities to

be so aggressive and hateful towards others that whole races could be eliminated.

 

Aftre the threat of attack is minimilzed(spelling?) other issues can be attended to.

as far as universal healthcare.... its possible... but eliminating poverty is not. at least not in a world where people

HAVE to work for things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its easier to catch up with poverty issues and health care than it is to catch up technology and militarily wise.

Especially militarily.

 

Being able to defend ones country is by far the most important thing. with out it, it is certainly in mans capabilities to

be so aggressive and hateful towards others that whole races could be eliminated.

 

Aftre the threat of attack is minimilzed(spelling?) other issues can be attended to.

as far as universal healthcare.... its possible... but eliminating poverty is not. at least not in a world where people

HAVE to work for things.

 

Okay... so we just have two very different points of views here. You are seeing enemys behind each single tree, I dont see them.

 

And it is NOT easier to catch up with poverty or health care or other problems of a country... military is much easier. You just have to capture other peoples devices to get informations about it.

It is hard to research military technology, but it is much harder to solve society problems.

 

Ever tried to capture a social problem? Countries all over the world try to eleminate those factors and none really got these things solved. Because there is no simple answer to it and the problems differ from country to country, city to city, village to village, minute to minute. Hundreds and thousands of factors which are all interacting with eachother in a society are competing against each other and you have to find a way to combine all of them to solve these issues. Many different lobbies want to be adressed, many different people think different things and every single one of them think s/he would have a slightly better plan than all of the others.

 

And lets face it: There is no other country on the whole planet which is spending so much money for military research! Why is the cold war over? Because no other country could spend that much money for the weapons anymore. So there are two possibilities: Out there are very, VERY intelligent none-us-people who can develope better weapons than the US military with 1/100 or less of the eta of the US military (very, very, very unlikely...) or we are talking about paranoia here.

 

It is not about military, it is about civil technology if you are talking about other countries which develope better things than the US. Asia is coming and they will kick the western countries ases if we can't produce better high-tec products like they do. 10 years ago, we were far ahead technologywise, but today the US is not (with the exception of military equipment) better than them today. They can produce much cheaper and in 5 years their products will be better. Have a look at the car-sector. Germany was always very popular for its great cars. Today Toyotas, Nissans and such manufactors are leading in Emergency Road Service statistics. We are still slightly better in some areas like comfort and new inventions, but that can change in a minute. Mobilephones are created by Sony and Nokia, a few my Motorola today and Nokia and Motorola are losing ground. And so on.

 

So what will you do if the only thing you can do better than others are weapons? Will you go and be a pirate? Because another job isnt available anymore? So it is very wise to invest more money in civil research and try to save your jobs by being a small step ahead ALL the time.

 

Oh and just to mention it: You need to kill every other person other than you to get totally rid of the possibility to get attacked... and that wont be a nice christmas eve if only one person is lightening the candles...

 

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering why this discussion has been allowed to go on for this long in the WIP section... I posted a question about a competitor product a while back and was deleted. Am I to understand that this conversation is more acceptable than a valid question? Or is it because this post was started by a "hash fellow"? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... I am a little surprised as well. I do however think that in general the discussion has been EXTREMELY informative (with a few... uh... diversions). I know I have learned stuff and it has made me think more and research more about this important topic. I never intended for it to go this far. I really really really should have put it in "Vern's World" but didn't expect this to happen.

 

As you can see though political topics like this are going to create controversial discussions. One of the reasons I spoke out against the FIRST one and also what made me start this thread.

 

Hey Martin? Moderators? Feel free to move this whole mess to "Vern's World" if you want.

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone been non confrontational and informative. No one calling anyone unpatriotic for their views. I say this has been a pretty civil discussion, and surprise that it is still going.

 

My concern as for being aggressive nation is that this is the path that the Germans follow and it took the collaboration of many countries to take them down, and if the USA doesn't change its path it could also end the same way for us, as it did for the Germans in WWII. Keep in mind they thought that they were in the rights in dealing with those that they consider outsider to their culture, and their bad economy were blame on them. Those sentiment are ripe for this country and could be a problem if the situation is not fix rationally. It takes time to educate a society to make better choices and implement new ideas toward advancing the country forward. There is a war going on and its not military but technology and education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone been non confrontational and informative. No one calling anyone unpatriotic for their views. I say this has been a pretty civil discussion, and surprise that it is still going.

 

Very true. I was expecting Godwin's Law about three pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing is that when you get down to the most basic basics - "What do we really want to accomplish?" - most of the differences between liberals and conservatives disappear.

 

Do we want a single mother to be able to feed and clothe her kids? Of course, what kind of monster would be against that?

 

So how do we do it? A liberal would say, tax people who have more than they need and give it to the poor mom. A conservative would say, that involves a host of problems that may not be obvious at first, but eventually hurts the people you're trying to help.

 

The disagreement, in other words, is over tactics. We don't disagree about what we want to accomplish as much as we think we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...