I can't wait til November!

[1bad65]

Looks like more incumbent Democrats had a bad night on election day. Arlen Specter lost, despite having been in the Senate for decades and having Obama's support.

And Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son and the candidate endorsed by the Tea Party, won over 60% of the vote in his race.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/18/tuesday.primaries/index.html?hpt=T1

[Drake]

They better not touch that 1.9% pay raise for us coming next year...

[1bad65]

They better not touch that 1.9% pay raise for us coming next year...

Republicans tend to appreciate the armed forces more than Democrats.

At least during my lifetime, the biggest defense/military spending cuts were done under Democrats Carter and Clinton. Of course Clinton "loathed the military" as well.

[Drake]

Republicans tend to appreciate the armed forces more than Democrats.

At least during my lifetime, the biggest defense/military spending cuts were done under Democrats Carter and Clinton. Of course Clinton "loathed the military" as well.

*pulls out Army Times right in front of him*

"A House panel proved May 12 it isn't ready to heed Defense Secretary Robert gates' call to cut personnel costs to free money for other military programs"

"Now just isn't the time to be doing that," said Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif.

She is also skeptical of Defense Department analyses that suggest our pay equals or exceeds the private sector.

" I am unaware of any civilian occupation that includes the same arduous duties and sacrifice that is made by members of the military."


I don't know if this article is online. Point being, Republicans DO NOT corner the market in patriotism or military support.

[Reality_Check]

Arlen Specter lost, despite having been in the Senate for decades and having Obama's support.

Yes, but Arlen Specter was a Republican until just recently and he lost a Democratic primary. Which is not entirely unsurprising. Especially after he said:

"My change in party will allow me to be re- elected."

It allowed Joe Sestak to paint him as nothing more than an opportunist (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004362-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody). Which, evidently, was a very successful strategy.

[1bad65]

I don't know if this article is online. Point being, Republicans DO NOT corner the market in patriotism or military support.

Notice I said "tend to". I never said they cornered the market.

There are pro-military Democrats, yes. But you also have some that are openly anti-military as well. I can't think of one anti-military Republican though.

[1bad65]

Yes, but Arlen Specter was a Republican until just recently and he lost a Democratic primary. Which is not entirely unsurprising. Especially after he said:

"My change in party will allow me to be re- elected."

It allowed Joe Sestak to paint him as nothing more than an opportunist (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004362-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody). Which, evidently, was a very successful strategy.

To be honest, Spector was an opportunist. Spector only left the GOP when it became apparent he would lose the GOP primary.

You do realize that Obama backed Spector though, right?

[Drake]

Notice I said "tend to". I never said they cornered the market.

There are pro-military Democrats, yes. But you also have some that are openly anti-military as well. I can't think of one anti-military Republican though.

Who's blatantly anti-military? That's sort of like political suicide.

[1bad65]

Who's blatantly anti-military? That's sort of like political suicide.

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq." -John Kerry

"I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, ..." -Bill Clinton

[Reality_Check]

You do realize that Obama backed Spector though, right?

Just like Mitch McConnell backed Trey Grayson.

[Reality_Check]

Of course the Republican candidate for the seat formerly held by Jack Murtha wasn't able to win. In a conservative district that has been trending red.

I believe that makes the Republican's 0-7 in special elections over the last 16 months (NY-20, IL-5, CA-32, CA-10, NY-23, FL-19, and PA-12).

[1bad65]

Just like Mitch McConnell backed Trey Grayson.

Alot of the Party favorites lost last night. Honestly, this is good for the country. I am smart enough to realize some Republicans are to blame as well for the messes we are in.

Which race was this, btw?

[1bad65]

Of course the Republican candidate for the seat formerly held by Jack Murtha wasn't able to win. In a conservative district that has been trending red.

I believe that makes the Republican's 0-7 in special elections over the last 16 months (NY-20, IL-5, CA-32, CA-10, NY-23, FL-19, and PA-12).

It's a conservative district if you count voter registrations. But Murtha, who was a pork barrel king, held the seat for years and years.

Out of those 7 special elections, how many of those were seats held by Republicans that changed hands? I know NY-20 was, but of course the Republicans split their votes in that race.

[Reality_Check]

Alot of the Party favorites lost last night. Honestly, this is good for the country.

On this we agree: I am a fan of primary challenges. No incumbent is entitled to their seat.

[1bad65]

On this we agree: I am a fan of primary challenges. No incumbent is entitled to their seat.

Yup. I agree 100%. Sadly, alot of politicians have an entitlement mentality. November will be a reality check for alot of politicians.

[Reality_Check]

Which race was this, btw?

Trey Grayson lost to Rand Paul.

[Drake]

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq." -John Kerry

"I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, ..." -Bill Clinton

John Kerry already clarified that statement. I don't like him, but that's for different reasons.

And how is what Bill Clinton wrote anti-military?

[1bad65]

John Kerry already clarified that statement. I don't like him, but that's for different reasons.

And how is what Bill Clinton wrote anti-military?

Kerry gave an explanation that, in my opinion, made no sense. If you bought it, that's fine, and your right to do so. I did not buy his explanation, nor did some Iraq war veterans (I've seen some hilarious pics of them referencing that quote). Kerry is also famous for throwing the medals he got in Vietnam over the fence of the Capitol Building. Of course Kerry again waffled and said he threw his ribbons, but not his medals. He claimed he threw another man's medals. I also feel that is anti-military.

When you say you "loathe the military", I don't see how anyone could say that's not anti-military.

[Pork Chop]

Wasn't a fan of Kerry (how the F do you get a medal for getting injured when you and your buddies are the only ones firing?) nor Clinton (slashed CoLA just before I took my first job that actually paid CoLA, so that was personal).

But I think I'm finally ready to vote Republican. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU&feature=player_embedded)

[dimethylsea]

I look forward to voting Democrat for the next 20 years or so.

The GOP is the party of war, of foreign military adventures, of deficit spending on bombs, bullets and drones to be exploded/expended outside our borders.


If you want perpetual war, moralizing and pandering to our own home grown Christian version of the Jihadist zealots, and open (rather than covert) corruption with respect to the Wall Street fatcats and oil companies in general...

then just vote Republican.


In the final analysis... Bush and Cheney lied, they lead us into war, and their party must pay the price for their error. That's the nature of a democratic society.

Republicans are the greater of the two electoral evils.. and their party must and will be paying for decades for their war-mongering.

Even if that means electing a radical green socialist or otherwise unacceptable candidates just because they do not have an (R) next to their name.

[1bad65]

I look forward to voting Democrat for the next 20 years or so.

Why not just move to Cuba and leave this country alone?


The GOP is the party of war,

LBJ was a Democrat.


of foreign military adventures,

Clinton sent our troops to more foreign countries than any other President.


of deficit spending on bombs, bullets and drones

Is deficit spending on entitlement programs any better?


Even if that means electing a radical green socialist or otherwise unacceptable candidates just because they do not have an (R) next to their name.

Sadly, you have learned nothing from history.

The people of Cuba said the same thing about the Batista regime. The people of Russia said the same thing about the Czars. The people of China said the same thing about the Nationalists. And after the millions of murders committed by the communists/socialists who replaced those governments, I'm sure the people would have preffered to skip the "change".

[dimethylsea]

Why not just move to Cuba and leave this country alone?

It's my country and you lack the will or the firepower to make me leave. To be blunt.



Clinton sent our troops to more foreign countries than any other President.


Yeah but it wasn't to the tune of a quarter million service members plus all their support, equipage, etc. Bush and Cheney are the ones who started that ball rolling.



Is deficit spending on entitlement programs any better?


Sure it is. At least the money is arguably wasted at home creating economic benefit for American businesses (it's not like the poor invest their pittance overseas.. they buy their daily bread and pay their rent with it).
Deficit or borrowed money spent on a bullet or missile is destroyed overseas.
Deficit money spent on the poor supports American enterprise and incidentally keeps the rabble loyal to the civic entities and social contract (if you want to be really cynical about it).




The people of Cuba said the same thing about the Batista regime. The people of Russia said the same thing about the Czars. The people of China said the same thing about the Nationalists. And after the millions of murders committed by the communists/socialists who replaced those governments, I'm sure the people would have preffered to skip the "change".

That may very well be true.. but this is America, and in America we have (mostly) free elections that (generally) are largely fair.
And the right and responsibility of the electorate is to vote in the national interest and in their own beliefs. And that means using politician's track records as a benchmark.

In my case that means cutting off my own right hand before supporting the warmongers at the voting booth.

[1bad65]

It's my country and you lack the will or the firepower to make me leave. To be blunt.

I'd never force a law abiding citizen out. That's wrong. Maybe you advocate that though, judging by your reaction to my post.

I mean, why not save yourself all the trouble of trying to transform this country when you can go to somewhere like Cuba that already has all the poilicies/programs/Government in place that you advocate.


Yeah but it wasn't to the tune of a quarter million service members plus all their support, equipage, etc. Bush and Cheney are the ones who started that ball rolling.

So the liberal President gets a pass in your book. Ok, at least your honest, unlike your President.


Sure it is. At least the money is arguably wasted at home creating economic benefit for American businesses (it's not like the poor invest their pittance overseas.. they buy their daily bread and pay their rent with it).

Deficit or borrowed money spent on a bullet or missile is destroyed overseas.
Deficit money spent on the poor supports American enterprise and incidentally keeps the rabble loyal to the civic entities and social contract (if you want to be really cynical about it).


Newflash!!! Since the entitlements started, the problems they were designed to fix have gotten worse.

We have more people on the dole now that when the "Great Society" began over 40 years ago. Thats failure. We have a larger number of children born into poverty and single parent households than 40 years ago. That's failure. We spend more on entitlements per year than the liberals who created them said they would cost in total. That's failure. And all of that is wasted money.


That may very well be true.. but this is America, and in America we have (mostly) free elections that (generally) are largely fair.
And the right and responsibility of the electorate is to vote in the national interest and in their own beliefs. And that means using politician's track records as a benchmark.

In my case that means cutting off my own right hand before supporting the warmongers at the voting booth.

It's not a case of it "may very well be true", it IS true. Throughout history when people revolt/vote/etc for "change", just for Change's sake, it's not good. There is always something worse out there. So to me, voting blindly against a Party, and not listening to the individual candidates, is dangerous.

Also, remeber this when talking about government vs "Big Business": Big Business didn't legalize slavery, Governments did. Big Business didn't tell blacks they couldn't vote, Government did. Big Business never banned or burned books, Governments have. Big Business never threw people in gas chambers and ovens, Governments did.

Large Governments are ALWAYS present when people are murdered by their Governments. Small Governments don't have the ability to murder millions, only big ones do. I look at Government like fire, it's needed and serves some good. But left unchecked and allowed to grow too large, it can be a very destructive force than can kill everything in its path. I feel we should not take the risk that if we have a big Government, all will be ok. And history is on my side...

[KC Elbows]

Small government could never deal with the policies that required us to be in Iraq.

Also, it was slaveholders in Congress and the need for those slave holding states in the union that laegalized slavery, not 'government'. And segregation was not first and foremost government related, either, and where there was a government aspect, it was usually state, not federal government.

And the Chinese nationalists did not have a truly free press for most of their history, and dissent was normally responded to with purges and assassinations until the US was getting embarrassed about it. The Chinese situation was complex, to sum it up as good guys vs. bad guys is naive. The nationalist leader, in real terms, was nothiing more than a warlord with no stable authority until confined to an island that he could easily control due to the size of his forces vs. the land mass. He never, never had a chance of ruling the whole mainland and also having ties with the US. There is a reason the communists won, for good or ill, and it isn't a simple one, and there are so many dirty hands in it, that often the loudest complainers are from the countries whose influence had to be driven out, by whatever leadership could do it.

[Drake]

What Fmr Pres Clinton did was nowhere near the scale of what Fmr Pres Bush did, militarily. More countries? Doesn't matter, because, like said before, in terms of equipment, money, and soldiers, Fmr Pres Bush deployed exponentially more soldiers and gear than Clinton.

HOWEVER, I don't think this point is really making sense, as both were responding to different times and situations. Apples and oranges, really, though I do think declaring war on Iraq before Afghanistan was even close to finished was just a bad idea.

[dimethylsea]

HOWEVER, I don't think this point is really making sense, as both were responding to different times and situations. Apples and oranges, really, though I do think declaring war on Iraq before Afghanistan was even close to finished was just a bad idea.

In all honesty.. if we (i.e. America) wanted to institute real and lasting regime change in Afghanistan we would have gone in with EVERYTHING, and we would have ignored almost everything else until we had truly won (and that would be 10-15 laters MINIMUM). Till a whole generation of young Afghans had grown up with McDonalds and Walmarts and Beyonce.

Not just the military, or primarily the military. Send in the doctors, the nurses, the school teachers, the businessmen and women, the engineers. We would have had to do it from the bottom up, not the top down.

There was plenty of support worldwide for doing *something* in Afghanistan.. but it would have required Bush and Cheney to spend literally the entire remainder of their term/s working relentlessly pouring American knowhow, culture, business practices etc. into the region to actually do it right. And then they would have to hand it off to the next two Presidents to do the same thing.

Instead we went in hard and fast, took Kabul and declared victory.

This is, pardon my French, dumb as f*ck. The 'Stan is called "the Graveyard of Empires" for a reason. The only real way to change that is to send in massive amounts of everybody BUT the military, and have the conventional military play a security role for the Peace Corps, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Public Health Service and every other aid organization we could bribe, threaten, cajole and pressure into the region.

Of course that would not be very sexy and would not get us any oil to speak of.

Bush would probably have gone down in history as a much better President if he said
"People from Afghanistan have attacked America. We will not destroy the country who harbored these attackers. But we will change the country that they used as a base. I confidently expect my democratically elected successor to declare victory in 20 years, and do so standing next to the 5th democratically elected head of the Afghan state. Excuse me, we have alot of work to do".

As it is.. he will wind up being the last son of a President ever elected to the nation's highest office, in all likelihood.

[dimethylsea]

Small government could never deal with the policies that required us to be in Iraq.

Also, it was slaveholders in Congress and the need for those slave holding states in the union that laegalized slavery, not 'government'. And segregation was not first and foremost government related, either, and where there was a government aspect, it was usually state, not federal government..


True. Why is it that the "small government" types (with the notable exception of Ron Paul and Rand Paul) seem to be all about small government EXCEPT for military spending and certain sorts of crime control?

Because they are moral cowards, and lack the courage of their convictions.

If you believe in minimalist governments you can't justify vast standing armies and three ways to nuke the world (ICBMs, bombers AND subs). Not without a clear super-state (like the USSR) as a declared enemy threatening invasion anyway.

[Drake]

In all honesty.. if we (i.e. America) wanted to institute real and lasting regime change in Afghanistan we would have gone in with EVERYTHING, and we would have ignored almost everything else until we had truly won (and that would be 10-15 laters MINIMUM). Till a whole generation of young Afghans had grown up with McDonalds and Walmarts and Beyonce.

Not just the military, or primarily the military. Send in the doctors, the nurses, the school teachers, the businessmen and women, the engineers. We would have had to do it from the bottom up, not the top down.

There was plenty of support worldwide for doing *something* in Afghanistan.. but it would have required Bush and Cheney to spend literally the entire remainder of their term/s working relentlessly pouring American knowhow, culture, business practices etc. into the region to actually do it right. And then they would have to hand it off to the next two Presidents to do the same thing.

Instead we went in hard and fast, took Kabul and declared victory.

This is, pardon my French, dumb as f*ck. The 'Stan is called "the Graveyard of Empires" for a reason. The only real way to change that is to send in massive amounts of everybody BUT the military, and have the conventional military play a security role for the Peace Corps, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Public Health Service and every other aid organization we could bribe, threaten, cajole and pressure into the region.

Of course that would not be very sexy and would not get us any oil to speak of.

Bush would probably have gone down in history as a much better President if he said
"People from Afghanistan have attacked America. We will not destroy the country who harbored these attackers. But we will change the country that they used as a base. I confidently expect my democratically elected successor to declare victory in 20 years, and do so standing next to the 5th democratically elected head of the Afghan state. Excuse me, we have alot of work to do".

As it is.. he will wind up being the last son of a President ever elected to the nation's highest office, in all likelihood.


I agree completely.

[uki]

LOL... the great voting scam of democracy, where everyone thinks their vote counts... republican, democrat... two sides of the same coin. wanna make a difference?? stop giving them power. :)

[1bad65]

Small government could never deal with the policies that required us to be in Iraq.

You do realize that people like Ron Paul who call for a much smaller government also call for us to leave Iraq, right?


Also, it was slaveholders in Congress and the need for those slave holding states in the union that laegalized slavery, not 'government'. And segregation was not first and foremost government related, either, and where there was a government aspect, it was usually state, not federal government.

LMAO at this excuse. Governments have ok'd slavery, apartheid, segregation, etc. It is what it is.

I can't actually believe you typed that Congress legalized slavery, but not government. What the hell do you think Congress is???


And the Chinese nationalists did not have a truly free press for most of their history, and dissent was normally responded to with purges and assassinations until the US was getting embarrassed about it. The Chinese situation was complex, to sum it up as good guys vs. bad guys is naive. The nationalist leader, in real terms, was nothiing more than a warlord with no stable authority until confined to an island that he could easily control due to the size of his forces vs. the land mass. He never, never had a chance of ruling the whole mainland and also having ties with the US. There is a reason the communists won, for good or ill, and it isn't a simple one, and there are so many dirty hands in it, that often the loudest complainers are from the countries whose influence had to be driven out, by whatever leadership could do it.

Which Government murdered tens of millions of innocent Chinese civilians, the communists under Mao or the Nationalists?

What I'm saying about large governments being dangerous is true, history does not lie. You just either cannot grasp it, or you refuse to.

[1bad65]

The rest of your post has some good points, I agreed with some actually. But this is likely not gonna happen:


As it is.. he will wind up being the last son of a President ever elected to the nation's highest office, in all likelihood.

I say this because America truly is starting to develop a "political class". Look at how many sons of big name politicians are in politics; Beau Biden is involved in politics, and Jimmy Carter's son just got elected to office in Georgia. You may be right, but there is a chance you will be wrong. I myself like 'new blood' entering politics, I think it reduces graft/bribes/corruption/etc, but I am against a law enacting term limits. Voters should just enact the term limits themselves by paying attention to the issues and candidates, not just repeadedly voting for incumbents while not paying attention. As much as I believe voting is a wonderful right, and people should take full advantage of that right, it's usually not good when people who pay zero attention to politics get out and vote.

[1bad65]

True. Why is it that the "small government" types (with the notable exception of Ron Paul and Rand Paul) seem to be all about small government EXCEPT for military spending and certain sorts of crime control?

Because you need a strong military to maintain peace. We were attacked on December 7,1941 for example because we were perceived as weak. We were not attacked that day because Japan wanted to fight the biggest, baddest country on the planet.


If you believe in minimalist governments you can't justify vast standing armies and three ways to nuke the world (ICBMs, bombers AND subs). Not without a clear super-state (like the USSR) as a declared enemy threatening invasion anyway.

Actually you do need alot of nuclear weapons for defense. The theory behind having so many weapons is simple; you don't need enough to just destroy the world once and you're safe. You need enough to be able to absorb a first strike that takes you totally by surprise, yet have enough left to retaliate and still destroy your enemy. It's called the "Mutually Assured Destruction" doctrine. Ask Drake if you don't believe me.

And we do have a clear super-state who is not exactly our best buddy, they are called China. They are a communist dictatorship with nuclear weapons and the largest standing army in the world.

[Drake]

Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe...but not the big ones. Having them just doesn't make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it'll devastate the entire world. It's suicide.

[1bad65]

Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe...but not the big ones. Having them just doesn't make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it'll devastate the entire world. It's suicide.

My point was that I'm sure you are familiar with the doctrine in question. You may not agree with it, but I just wanted you to back me up in saying it and the theory behind it do indeed exist.

[dimethylsea]

Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe...but not the big ones. Having them just doesn't make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it'll devastate the entire world. It's suicide.

Drake.. maybe you should explain to 1Bad65 about the "three prongs" of America's strategic nuclear arsenal (boomers, bombers and ICBMs) and how the use of even one of the prongs tends to result in feco-ventilatory impact on a planetary scale.

And that doesn't even go into all the SADMs and various tactical nuke toys the lab-coats designed to use by NATO "stay-behinds" in a Soviet-occupied Europe.


We really don't NEED three ways to destroy the world. China is a land power. They can't march that army across the Pacific.

The politicians should pick 1 or even 2 of the prongs of the strategic nuclear deterrent and mothball the remaining prongs. Maintaining them is extremely expensive and we could (assuming you are all about being the world's policeman) use the money on more Special Forces for asymetric unconventional warfare.

[dimethylsea]

Actually you do need alot of nuclear weapons for defense. The theory behind having so many weapons is simple; you don't need enough to just destroy the world once and you're safe. You need enough to be able to absorb a first strike that takes you totally by surprise, yet have enough left to retaliate and still destroy your enemy. It's called the "Mutually Assured Destruction" doctrine. Ask Drake if you don't believe me.

And we do have a clear super-state who is not exactly our best buddy, they are called China. They are a communist dictatorship with nuclear weapons and the largest standing army in the world.

I don't have to ask Drake. I actually support America having a strong nuclear deterrent. I'm personally a fan of scrapping the aircraft carriers, converting the Navy to mostly boomers and lighter surface craft useful for interdiction but not projecting power via naval aviation squadrons, and then giving the Air Force a choice between the Stratofortress or the ICBMs.

That gives TWO ways to destroy anyone foolish enough to mount an invasion.

You need to understand something 1Bad65... I'm not a ignorant military-hating hippy... I'm a military-hating hippy who served and was incredibly bored all the time while in the service. I sought to understand as much about our national defense capabilities as I could. You have alot of time to read (and everybody's blessing to) Jane's and all kinds of stuff sitting in a rear-deployed fleet hospital in the sandbox.

Personally I think a nuclear deterrent, a huge National Guard (dual-purposed for natural disaster interventions), and a super-lean volunteer military that's long on Special Forces and small naval craft is the way to go.

In otherwords.. the power to utterly destroy any nation on the planet, the power to protect our shipping on the oceans, protect US states from land or sea invasion by a state actor, and ridiculous levels of natural disaster response.

But virtually NO ABILITY TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY.

[1bad65]

You need to understand something 1Bad65... I'm not a ignorant military-hating hippy... I'm a military-hating hippy who served and was incredibly bored all the time while in the service. I sought to understand as much about our national defense capabilities as I could. You have alot of time to read (and everybody's blessing to) Jane's and all kinds of stuff sitting in a rear-deployed fleet hospital in the sandbox.

I never thought you were like that, but thanks for the clarification. And thanks for your service as well.


Personally I think a nuclear deterrent, a huge National Guard (dual-purposed for natural disaster interventions), and a super-lean volunteer military that's long on Special Forces and small naval craft is the way to go.

But virtually NO ABILITY TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY.

Nuclear weapons aside, that's exactly what I believe the Founders invisioned.

Maybe instead of voting Democrat because of your dislike of Republicans, you should vote Libertarian. They are alot more in line with your views that you've made known. Me personally, I only vote Republican to keep Democrats out of office. Assuming the Libertarians become viable candidates, I'll likely vote for them ~90% of the time. I fear Democrat policies because A) their Party leaders at this time are socialists B) their fiscal policies mirror those in the EU, and we can all see those economies on the verge of imploding under the strain of socialism. Of course Greece already imploded. And if you look at Greece, what they have now is what Democrats here are calling for us to have. :eek:

[dimethylsea]

Nuclear weapons aside, that's exactly what I believe the Founders invisioned.


Well nobody in the 1700s could conceive of something like nuclear weapons.
But what they COULD conceive of was this..

No country where every single law-abiding adult citizen possesses the same longarms and sidearms as a typical infantry soldier in a modern military can be successfully invaded and occupied.

You can destroy such a country.. but all you will be able to occupy is a wasteland.
That's what the Founders believed and I agree with that.



Maybe instead of voting Democrat because of your dislike of Republicans, you should vote Libertarian. They are alot more in line with your views that you've made known. Me personally, I only vote Republican to keep Democrats out of office. Assuming the Libertarians become viable candidates, I'll likely vote for them ~90% of the time. I fear Democrat policies because A) their Party leaders at this time are socialists B) their fiscal policies mirror those in the EU, and we can all see those economies on the verge of imploding under the strain of socialism. Of course Greece already imploded. And if you look at Greece, what they have now is what Democrats here are calling for us to have. :eek:

If I had a chance to vote for a Libertarian candidates that had an ice cubes chance in Hades of taking power I might.

But the FIRST virtue of Libertarian thought is the NON INITIATION OF FORCE.

That means my libertarian principles require me to vote for the party that is less inclined to kill non-Americans in military actions.

For a long time I held my nose and voted for the GOP on the grounds of fiscal responsibility and firearms.

Bush and Cheney taught me a lesson. There is NO true fiscal responsibility among the GOP OR the Demos.. and since this is a pipe-dream it's better to vote for spendthrifts who waste the money mostly at home, not on foreign wars.

The Demos are more to my taste on social morality issues (alternate lifestyles, drug legalization, science and biotechnology research, healthcare) and I *know* the GOP will spend as much as the Demos will. they will just use the money on corporate kickbacks and bombs.

For what it's worth I'm scared crapless about the deficit and the impending crash of our fiat currency but the GOP will NEVER have the courage to truly address this issue.

The lesser of the two evils is the Democratic Party. At least they aren't all hot and bothered to throw me and all my close friends in jail and throw away the key.

[1bad65]

Well nobody in the 1700s could conceive of something like nuclear weapons.
But what they COULD conceive of was this..

No country where every single law-abiding adult citizen possesses the same longarms and sidearms as a typical infantry soldier in a modern military can be successfully invaded and occupied.

You can destroy such a country.. but all you will be able to occupy is a wasteland.
That's what the Founders believed and I agree with that.

I completely agree.

Of course it's the Democrats who pass anti-gun legislation, not Republicans.


Bush and Cheney taught me a lesson. There is NO true fiscal responsibility among the GOP OR the Demos.. and since this is a pipe-dream it's better to vote for spendthrifts who waste the money mostly at home, not on foreign wars.

Don't lump all Republicans in with Bush. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", not a "conservative". I openly admit Bush let spending get way out of control. In his defense, he did try and head off the sub-prime mortgage issue in 2002, but he and the Republicans were called racists and so no reforms to Fannie or Freddie were implemented.

And lets be honest here, Obama has spent more in one year than any other President. And it's deficit spending. :eek:


For what it's worth I'm scared crapless about the deficit and the impending crash of our fiat currency but the GOP will NEVER have the courage to truly address this issue.

Come on now. Either you are not paying attention, or you won;t admit the truth. In Congress, its the GOP who said Obamacare would be alot more than Obama promised, and now they were proven correct. It's the GOP who is trying to pass legislation stopping these bailouts. And it's Obama who is now considering bailing out the Teachers Union, which should cost a good ~$25 billion. This guy already has a bigger deficit than GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan had COMBINED. :eek:


The lesser of the two evils is the Democratic Party. At least they aren't all hot and bothered to throw me and all my close friends in jail and throw away the key.

In some ways, yes. But fiscally, no friggin way. They are gonna bankrupt this country for the sake of buying themselves votes. That's a **** shame.

And why would the GOP lock you guys up and throw away the key? :confused:

[MasterKiller]

In his defense, he did try and head off the sub-prime mortgage issue in 2002, but he and the Republicans were called racists and so no reforms to Fannie or Freddie were implemented.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8


It's the GOP who is trying to pass legislation stopping these bailouts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oetNPJJcuAE

[dimethylsea]

I completely agree.

Of course it's the Democrats who pass anti-gun legislation, not Republicans.


Given the number of firearms we have in civilian hands in this country and the amount of hunters and owners I'm not especially sanguine about the ability of Demos to ban our guns. Some of them don't even want to.

The Democrats can usually be reasoned with on single issue matters, or else allow the gun control issue to default to the states. I have no problem if a municipality or state chooses to enact gun control. The Constitution says
"CONGRESS".. Cities and states can do whatever they can get the votes to support.




And why would the GOP lock you guys up and throw away the key? :confused:

It's this tiny little human rights travesty called the War on Drugs.. you may have heard of it.

[1bad65]

Given the number of firearms we have in civilian hands in this country and the amount of hunters and owners I'm not especially sanguine about the ability of Demos to ban our guns. Some of them don't even want to.

It's not a question of if they have the ability to do it, it's the fact that some of them want to attempt it in the first place.


It's this tiny little human rights travesty called the War on Drugs.. you may have heard of it.

I have. And again, this is another issue you fall in line with the Libertarians on, not the Democrats. And FYI, the only candidate who ran for President in 2008 who openly called for the legalization of drugs was Ron Paul, a Republican.

Paul also ran against the Iraq war, another issue you two have the same stance on. Did you vote for Dr Paul in 2008 by chance?

[MasterKiller]

It's not a question of if they have the ability to do it, it's the fact that some of them want to attempt it in the first place.

I have. And again, this is another issue you fall in line with the Libertarians on, not the Democrats. And FYI, the only candidate who ran for President in 2008 who openly called for the legalization of drugs was Ron Paul, a Republican.

Paul also ran against the Iraq war, another issue you two have the same stance on. Did you vote for Dr Paul in 2008 by chance?

Paul also believes the state should endorse Christianity and allow prayer in school.

[SanHeChuan]

I have. And again, this is another issue you fall in line with the Libertarians on, not the Democrats. And FYI, the only candidate who ran for President in 2008 who openly called for the legalization of drugs was Ron Paul, a Republican.


Paul is a R.I.N.O., he is a Libertarian. ;)

[1bad65]

Paul also believes the state should endorse Christianity and allow prayer in school.

I've not heard that. Of course I'm not saying you are wrong. Can you source that please?

[1bad65]

Paul is a R.I.N.O., he is a Libertarian. ;)

Zing! You are correct.

However, R.I.N.O. is actually used to describe Republicans who vote like Democrats, not Republicans who vote like Libertarians. Arlen Spector was the perfect example.

[David Jamieson]

Man, I can't wait for November either! Get rid of these teabag idiot whiners and their fantasies and get some work done in washington. sweep all the fat asses with theior instant no votes based on nothing more than their sore loserness. lol

Gobama, crush the infidels! muwhahahaha!:p

[dimethylsea]

I have. And again, this is another issue you fall in line with the Libertarians on, not the Democrats. And FYI, the only candidate who ran for President in 2008 who openly called for the legalization of drugs was Ron Paul, a Republican.

Paul also ran against the Iraq war, another issue you two have the same stance on. Did you vote for Dr Paul in 2008 by chance?

No. I voted for Obama. Ron Paul had a negligible chance of winning and the politics of punishment required that the GOP lose.

Understand.. it's not that I like the Democrats.. it's that I utterly and completely despise the GOP and all it's works.

The GOP is (in my view) very much the greater of the two evils.

[Kansuke]

Man, I can't wait for November either! Get rid of these teabag idiot whiners and their fantasies and get some work done in washington. sweep all the fat asses with theior instant no votes based on nothing more than their sore loserness. lol

Gobama, crush the infidels! muwhahahaha!:p

Don't you people have your own elections up there, or whatever primitive tribal practices you follow? Stick to interpreting the cracks on baked tortoise shells to choose your insignificant government, which as usual will exist at our pleasure, and STFU about the elections of your betters.

[David Jamieson]

Don't you people have your own elections up there, or whatever primitive tribal practices you follow? Stick to interpreting the cracks on baked tortoise shells to choose your insignificant government, which as usual will exist at our pleasure, and STFU about the elections of your betters.

go take your blood pressure pills tubby, you're cracking up. :p How's that inferiority complex doing with you anyway?

and, Gobama, it's your white house, keep it coming, Gobama, yeah! lol

[mawali]

I say this because America truly is starting to develop a "political class". Look at how many sons of big name politicians are in politics; Beau Biden is involved in politics, and Jimmy Carter's son just got elected to office in Georgia. You may be right, but there is a chance you will be wrong. I myself like 'new blood' entering politics, I think it reduces graft/bribes/corruption/etc, but I am against a law enacting term limits. Voters should just enact the term limits themselves by paying attention to the issues and candidates, not just repeadedly voting for incumbents while not paying attention. As much as I believe voting is a wonderful right, and people should take full advantage of that right, it's usually not good when people who pay zero attention to politics get out and vote.

We may agree for different reasons but your analysis is a little late! You actually believe this began on January 15, 2009! It has been in formation for some time!
The mere fact that you have sons and daughters following in the footsteps should have been an indication at least 20 years ago! If I did not know better I would say that capitalism is more endearing of a political class system than the other politial systems, don't you think, as evidenced by your new found analyses.

I do not believe the American system is capable of enacting their own limits on politicians because the slimy crowd (i.e politicians) are far more cleverer at hiding their true loyalties. En masse, there was/is/appeared to be a large group of "Drill Baby Drill" chorus that wanted to dig up anyplace for oil and now they are silent and the American people are still being duped. Those same group of people want laisse faire business policy but now want the government to take over the oil disaster cleanup! All is oil (at least, interests) smoke and mirrors!

[Kansuke]

go take your blood pressure pills tubby, you're cracking up. :p How's that inferiority complex doing with you anyway?

and, Gobama, it's your white house, keep it coming, Gobama, yeah! lol


Keep squeaking, mouse. Enjoy your beautiful but irrelevant country and we'll continue to make sure no one destroys you, as easy as that would be.

You're welcome.

[Drake]

Actually, I don't think states have that degree of control over oceanic waters. I think that's a federal issue, not a state one.

[David Jamieson]

Blah blah blah blah i have a tiny wee wee wah wah wah wah blah blah blah etc, etc..

zzzzzzz :p

[1bad65]

Man, I can't wait for November either! Get rid of these teabag idiot whiners and their fantasies and get some work done in washington. sweep all the fat asses with theior instant no votes based on nothing more than their sore loserness. lol

Gobama, crush the infidels! muwhahahaha!:p

The "teabag idiot whiners" are winning alot of primaries.

Your response begs the question; What kind of work do you think needs to be getting done in Washington that is not being done now? You are aware we just passed a massive new entitlement that gives "free" healthcare to 30 million bums, right? What other schemes are you proposing they waste the taxpayers money on?

[1bad65]

The GOP is (in my view) very much the greater of the two evils.

They aren't the ones who are bankrupting the country at a rapid pace. Even Obama has said the national debt will grow every year under his Presidency. :eek: Does that not scare the **** out of you?

[1bad65]

We may agree for different reasons but your analysis is a little late! You actually believe this began on January 15, 2009! It has been in formation for some time!

I never said that in began on Jan 15, 2009. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

It's been going on along time, yes. You don't think I've never heard of the Kennedys? It's just gotten worse and worse over time (just like the War on Poverty), and now a large percentage of our "leaders" have no idea how the common man lives. In the past it was there, just not to the extent it is now.

[David Jamieson]

well, I'm willing to accept the results of the elections and we can argue about policy after!

unlike tea bag idiot whiners who can't seem to accept election results. lol

[David Jamieson]

They aren't the ones who are bankrupting the country at a rapid pace. Even Obama has said the national debt will grow every year under his Presidency. :eek: Does that not scare the **** out of you?

They bankrupted your country before Obama took office.

[David Jamieson]

The "teabag idiot whiners" are winning alot of primaries.

Your response begs the question; What kind of work do you think needs to be getting done in Washington that is not being done now? You are aware we just passed a massive new entitlement that gives "free" healthcare to 30 million bums, right? What other schemes are you proposing they waste the taxpayers money on?

I don't agree with your view of humanity. You are all too quick to dehumanize people based on their income or country of origin, so your opinion carries no weight with me for that fact alone.

You call 30 million of your countrymen "bums" and by proxy of that you deem them undeserving of all the rights and privileges granted by proxy of being a US citizen.

less thinking like yours would be better in my opinion. You are old fashioned and your ideas are destructive of the constitution and bill of rights.

[1bad65]

well, I'm willing to accept the results of the elections and we can argue about policy after!

unlike tea bag idiot whiners who can't seem to accept election results. lol

Can you show us where they have challenged any election results please?

[1bad65]

They bankrupted your country before Obama took office.

Oh I forgot, it's all Bush's fault. :rolleyes:

If Bush already bankrupted the country, can you explain how Obama has a bigger national debt than Bush?

[1bad65]

I don't agree with your view of humanity. You are all too quick to dehumanize people based on their income or country of origin, so your opinion carries no weight with me for that fact alone.

Yeah, that working for your family and not others is something only us sociopaths believe in.

How is it dehumanizing to say I believe that everyone in this country has the greatest opportunity available and we don't need Government programs to succeed and prosper?


You call 30 million of your countrymen "bums" and by proxy of that you deem them undeserving of all the rights and privileges granted by proxy of being a US citizen.

Please show where our Constitution grants us all the right/priveledge to free, Government subsidized healthcare.


less thinking like yours would be better in my opinion. You are old fashioned and your ideas are destructive of the constitution and bill of rights.

Thinking like mine is what gave us this country. Our Founding Fathers despised Government and they wanted as little of it as possible.

If you are correct, please show us all what massive Government entitlement programs were enacted by the Founding Fathers. Please show us what rate of income taxes they took from the people. In short, back up your assertions. :D

[David Jamieson]

Oh I forgot, it's all Bush's fault. :rolleyes:

If Bush already bankrupted the country, can you explain how Obama has a bigger national debt than Bush?

ok, it's called simple math.

you take the debt created by the Bush admin over the last decade.
He started with a surplus by the way, and then you add Obama's year in office to that decade and you get the total debt.

+\- that's all there is too it.

are you actually trying to say that Obama has created more debt than Bush?

What grade of math did you complete?

[David Jamieson]

Yeah, that working for your family and not others is something only us sociopaths believe in.

How is it dehumanizing to say I believe that everyone in this country has the greatest opportunity available and we don't need Government programs to succeed and prosper?



Please show where our Constitution grants us all the right/priveledge to free, Government subsidized healthcare.



Thinking like mine is what gave us this country. Our Founding Fathers despised Government and they wanted as little of it as possible.

If you are correct, please show us all what massive Government entitlement programs were enacted by the Founding Fathers. Please show us what rate of income taxes they took from the people. In short, back up your assertions. :D

Are you saying you want to go back a couple of hundred years, re-institute slavery and live within a state of rebellion? Do you honestly think you are that?

[1bad65]

ok, it's called simple math.

you take the debt created by the Bush admin over the last decade.
He started with a surplus by the way, and then you add Obama's year in office to that decade and you get the total debt.

Ok, so why is Obama's one year of debt bigger than Reagans 8 years and GHW Bush's 4 years in office COMBINED? That's math. And whether you like it or not this formula is correct:
Obama's debt > Reagans debt + GHW Bush's debt


+\- that's all there is too it.

Yup, my formula just about spells it out.


are you actually trying to say that Obama has created more debt than Bush?

No, but I appreciate you asking me if I said that rather than just saying I said it.

However, after 4 years of Obama, he will have spent more than Bush did in 8 years. And that's not counting Obamacare. :eek:


What grade of math did you complete?

Some college. You?

[1bad65]

Are you saying you want to go back a couple of hundred years, re-institute slavery and live within a state of rebellion? Do you honestly think you are that?

STFU with race and slavery. You're like a broken record.

I didn't once even used the **** word in this thread. Why in the world are you bringing it up? Are you doing this bad in the debate you have to once again try and infuse race into the debate like you do everytime you are at a loss for words?

I'm for smaller Government. PERIOD. If you cant understand that, you're a waste of time to deal with.

[David Jamieson]

Ok, so why is Obama's one year of debt bigger than Reagans 8 years and GHW Bush's 4 years in office COMBINED? That's math. And whether you like it or not this formula is correct:
Obama's debt > Reagans debt + GHW Bush's debt



Yup, my formula just about spells it out.



No, but I appreciate you asking me if I said that rather than just saying I said it.

However, after 4 years of Obama, he will have spent more than Bush did in 8 years. And that's not counting Obamacare. :eek:



Some college. You?


So I'm right and you're just obfuscating things and not only that, you're throwing out guesses and predictions! solid.

Uni , psych major with a minor in religious studies. I know that's not math, but hey, you asked.

[1bad65]

So I'm right and you're just obfuscating things and not only that, you're throwing out guesses and predictions! solid.

It's not a guess, it's Obama's own numbers.

If those numbers are accurate, what then? ;)

[David Jamieson]

It's not a guess, it's Obama's own numbers.

If those numbers are accurate, what then? ;)

in 4 years? where are these numbers published?

[Reality_Check]

Ok, so why is Obama's one year of debt bigger than Reagans 8 years and GHW Bush's 4 years in office COMBINED? That's math. And whether you like it or not this formula is correct:
Obama's debt > Reagans debt + GHW Bush's debt

Source: (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm)

National Debt as of January 31, 1981 - $935,075,000
National Debt as of January 31, 1989 - $2,682,666,000

Increase from 1981: $1,747,591,000

National Debt as of January 31, 1993: 4,076,124,000

Increase from 1989: $1,393,458,000
Increase from 1981: $3,141,049,000

National Debt as of January 31, 2001: $5,716,071,000
National Debt as of January 31, 2009: $10,632,080,000

Increase from 2001: $4,916,009,000

National Debt as of April 30, 2010: $12,948,739,000

Increase from 2009: $2,316,659,000

It would seem to me that $2,316,659,000 is less than $3,141,049,000. That would make your assertion that President Obama's increase in the National Debt is higher than the amounts contributed to it by the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush flatly untrue.

However, the amount added to the National Debt by President George Walker Bush is higher than the amount added by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush combined.

That's math. :eek:

[Reality_Check]

I should note that my numbers from the previous post are not adjusted for inflation. The inflation adjusted numbers are:

1/31/81 - $2,242,626,690
1/31/89 - $4,716,494,610

Increase: $2,473,867,920

1/1/93 - $6,149,700,460

Increase from 1981 - $3,907,073,770

1/1/01 - $7,036,447,900
1/1/09 - $10,804,146,300

Increase from 2001 - $3,767,698,400

Looks like, when adjusting for inflation, George W. Bush's increase is actually lower than the combined increase by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Both increases are still higher than that of Barack Obama ($2,316,659,000).

[1bad65]

in 4 years? where are these numbers published?

Right here:

"President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, an eye-popping figure that threatens his ambitious goals to overhaul health care and explore new energy sources, congressional auditors said.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures that emerged Friday offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month — a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable."

Entire article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29791927/

And the article clearly states those are CBO figures.

[1bad65]

RC, it appears I was off somewhat.

But you must admit, after 4 years of Obama, at the rate we are going and using his own projections, his 4 years of debt will be greater than 12 years of Reagan/GHW Bush.

And your numbers also show us one more thing: $2,316,659,000. That's the amount of new debt Obama tacked on from Jan 09- April 2010. That's the biggest amount of any President ever, over a ~16 month period. Is this good in your eyes?

And remember RC, your numbers do not include Obamacare. Add that in, and its another $200 billion+ in debt. :eek::eek::eek:

[Kansuke]

Uni , psych major .


Well, that explains a lot...

[KC Elbows]

Well, that explains a lot...

You're kind of an asswipe.

This is fun.:rolleyes:

Forget that following members around here to harass them is now a short lived hobby, or you can't go the week without looking for people to be rude to?

[Kansuke]

You're kind of an asswipe.


You might want to talk to a psych major about that obsession...

[Syn7]

Looks like more incumbent Democrats had a bad night on election day. Arlen Specter lost, despite having been in the Senate for decades and having Obama's support.

And Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son and the candidate endorsed by the Tea Party, won over 60% of the vote in his race.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/18/tuesday.primaries/index.html?hpt=T1

thats crazy ay... i didnt think ron paul had so much love... that was a good look... who knows maybe one day he'll be a real contender for the throne... or should i say, "regency"... being representative and temporary by definition and all...

[David Jamieson]

hmmn it appears the troll has gotten enough lucidity going to take his meds and remember his password. lol

I think when he says : "that explains a lot" what he means is that he now understands why he is wrong on virtually every point he has expressed here when he has expressed a point and isn't just throwing his feces about. :p

welcome back trollboy kansuke, you weren't missed.

lol