video...HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA [Archive] - Debate Policy

Yurt

02-26-2008, 08:23 PM

He is sounding more and more like the anti-Christ. And yes, Gaffer, I've been saying the same thing; he is scarier than Hillary.

its true, its one of the reasons i would put up with hillary should she get office, she may be nuts on many other things, but i don't think she is about disarming america. in my opinion, i think she would love some kind of war/conflict in her reign. imagine, a woman CIC during such a time, i think she gets lightheaded with excitment over it. overall, i think she has somewhat reasonable expectations about this country's security needs.

glockmail

02-26-2008, 09:05 PM

If McCain hits Obama with this in the general I don't see how he can lose.

Pale Rider

02-26-2008, 09:11 PM

Maaaann.... this guy sounds like he's working for somebody else. Like he WANTS America to be easy to take if attacked.

Good lord.... the hussien in him is really starting to show.

Hugh Lincoln

02-26-2008, 10:25 PM

Obama would hand this country over to Muslim terrorists, no questions asked. But lots of Americans will probably vote for him out of racial guilt.

Immanuel

02-26-2008, 10:46 PM

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought, "the man wants to take away our right to bare arms? what about the 2nd amendment"... now that I watch that clip, I realize he not only wants to take away our right to bare arms, but he wants to take away the countries defenses.

That's just plain scary.

He didn't really say all that... did he?

Immie

manu1959

02-26-2008, 10:49 PM

its true, its one of the reasons i would put up with hillary should she get office, she may be nuts on many other things, but i don't think she is about disarming america. in my opinion, i think she would love some kind of war/conflict in her reign. imagine, a woman CIC during such a time, i think she gets lightheaded with excitment over it. overall, i think she has somewhat reasonable expectations about this country's security needs.

it would be cool....every 28 days she bombs someone....

Yurt

02-26-2008, 11:47 PM

it would be cool....every 28 days she bombs someone....

how do you know she is regular?

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 08:12 AM

it would be cool....every 28 days she bombs someone....

how do you know she is regular?

At her age? Wouldn't they have stopped or nearly so?

Immie

stephanie

02-27-2008, 08:17 AM

At her age? Wouldn't they have stopped or nearly so?

Immie

I was going to say something about that....but I figured they were just men, what would they know about that...........

J/K guys.........ya know I luv ya.........

I was thinking more on the line that she would bomb every time she found out Billyboy cheated on her AGAIN....:laugh2:

JohnDoe

02-27-2008, 08:25 AM

This is a pretty funny thread and enlightening! hahahahahaha!

I NEVER in my time spent on this board and ALL other political boards, thought that I would SEE THE DAY when Republicans actually thought that Hillary would be a better president than one of her opponents....!!!!! lol

I am still chuckling on that one! God's revenge! lol He's making ya'll eat crow on all you've said on Hillary, by allowing an Obama, who is even MORE LIBERAL, to be put up against her!!!

I have been saying for a while that Hillary is NOT as Liberal as you all have thought, she would be considered "right wing" of the Democratic Party, thus her trouble in competing with Obama with a group of liberal leaning voters.

jd

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 08:29 AM

I was going to say something about that....but I figured they were just men, what would they know about that...........

J/K guys.........ya know I luv ya.........

I was thinking more on the line that she would bomb every time she found out Billyboy cheated on her AGAIN....:laugh2:

In other words... three times a week? Oh my lord!!! :laugh2:

This is a pretty funny thread and enlightening! hahahahahaha!

I NEVER in my time spent on this board and ALL other political boards, thought that I would SEE THE DAY when Republicans actually thought that Hillary would be a better president than one of her opponents....!!!!! lol

I am still chuckling on that one! God's revenge! lol He's making ya'll eat crow on all you've said on Hillary, by allowing an Obama, who is even MORE LIBERAL, to be put up against her!!!

I have been saying for a while that Hillary is NOT as Liberal as you all have thought, she would be considered "right wing" of the Democratic Party, thus her trouble in competing with Obama with a group of liberal leaning voters.

jd

FYI:

I'm still not voting for Hillary. In fact, I'm not voting for either candidate. Until a candidate proves to me that he/she cares about America and her people and not the power and prestige of the office, I'm not voting for a candidate if it means I never vote for a major candidate again.

These campaigns have become more popularity (beauty) contests than elections for the continuation and betterment of America.

Immie

retiredman

02-27-2008, 08:32 AM

if it takes "X" number of megatons to incinerate the entire earth, how many times "X" do republicans think is wise for us to strive to have in our arsenal?

stephanie

02-27-2008, 08:34 AM

This is a pretty funny thread and enlightening! hahahahahaha!

I NEVER in my time spent on this board and ALL other political boards, thought that I would SEE THE DAY when Republicans actually thought that Hillary would be a better president than one of her opponents....!!!!! lol

I am still chuckling on that one! God's revenge! lol He's making you eat crow on all you've said on Hillary, by allowing an Obama, who is even MORE LIBERAL, to be put up against her!!!

I have been saying for a while that Hillary is NOT as Liberal as you all have thought, she would be considered "right wing" of the Democratic Party, thus her trouble in competing with Obama with a group of liberal leaning voters.

jd

I personally can't stand ANY of these candidates for President...

I want...........Matt Dillon to run........

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 08:36 AM

if it takes "X" number of megatons to incinerate the entire earth, how many times "X" do republicans think is wise for us to strive to have in our arsenal?

No more than enough to stop some other leader from incinerating the earth.

Immie

JohnDoe

02-27-2008, 08:37 AM

I personally can't stand ANY of these candidates for President...

I want...........Matt Dillon to run........

ooooooooooooooo, he's a cutie! :D I can go for that! :laugh2:

theHawk

02-27-2008, 08:49 AM

retiredman

02-27-2008, 08:51 AM

No more than enough to stop some other leader from incinerating the earth.

Immie

that doesn't make any sense, Immie.

How would being able to incinerate the entire world more than once stop some other leader from incinerating the entire world? Once we have enough nuclear warheads to turn our planet into a cinder, why do we need to spend billions of dollars building more nuclear warheads?

Monkeybone

02-27-2008, 08:51 AM

if it takes "X" number of megatons to incinerate the entire earth, how many times "X" do republicans think is wise for us to strive to have in our arsenal?

"X" + 5. those are the random underwater ones....shows those whales and other aquatics what is up.

stephanie

02-27-2008, 08:54 AM

ooooooooooooooo, he's a cutie! :D I can go for that! :laugh2:

oops dear I didn't make myself clear on that......
I was talking about the old western show........Matt Dillon the Marshall..

with Festis and Miss Kitty...

Now that is how I think the United States should still run....:laugh2:

JohnDoe

02-27-2008, 08:58 AM

oops dear I didn't make myself clear on that......
I was talking about the old western show........Matt Dillon the Marshall..

with Festis and Miss Kitty...

Now that is how I think the United States should still run....:laugh2:

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, well....then you MISSED the chance of being a uniter! MY Matt Dillon is a cutie! LOL

:laugh2:

jd

glockmail

02-27-2008, 09:05 AM

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 09:06 AM

that doesn't make any sense, Immie.

How would being able to incinerate the entire world more than once stop some other leader from incinerating the entire world? Once we have enough nuclear warheads to turn our planet into a cinder, why do we need to spend billions of dollars building more nuclear warheads?

Did I say X >= 1?

We don't need more than enough to incinerate the world. We need only enough to stop some other maniac from incinerating the world. That means if it takes 5X to stop one maniac out there from incinerating the world then we should have 5X. If it means it only takes .25X then that is all we need.

We don't need to use it!!!! We only need to have enough to scare someone else out of using theirs.

Immie

retiredman

02-27-2008, 09:09 AM

Did I say X >= 1?

We don't need more than enough to incinerate the world. We need only enough to stop some other maniac from incinerating the world. That means if it takes 5X to stop one maniac out there from incinerating the world then we should have 5X. If it means it only takes .25X then that is all we need.

We don't need to use it!!!! We only need to have enough to scare someone else out of using theirs.

Immie

we have more than enough to do that right now. Why should se spend billions building more?

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 09:13 AM

we have more than enough to do that right now. Why should se spend billions building more?

Wait a minute... where did I say we should be building more? We've got a lot of searching to find where I said that.

I can see updating our outdated arsenal. We wouldn't want to take a sword to a gunfight... would we? But, we don't need more IMHO.

Immie

retiredman

02-27-2008, 09:15 AM

what then, in the youtube clip, did Obama say that you found so scary, if not his statements concerning nukes?

retiredman

02-27-2008, 09:17 AM

Wait a minute... where did I say we should be building more? We've got a lot of searching to find where I said that.

I can see updating our outdated arsenal. We wouldn't want to take a sword to a gunfight... would we? But, we don't need more IMHO.

Immie

and there is a significant difference between updating our delivery systems and adding more nukes to our arsenal

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 09:20 AM

what then, in the youtube clip, did Obama say that you found so scary, if not his statements concerning nukes?

He didn't say cut our nukes to a reasonable amount. He said eliminate! Period!! He said he would eliminate our nukes and work on getting the rest of the world to eliminate theirs. Yeah, right, like that is going to happen.

Immie

retiredman

02-27-2008, 09:28 AM

He didn't say cut our nukes to a reasonable amount. He said eliminate! Period!! He said he would eliminate our nukes and work on getting the rest of the world to eliminate theirs. Yeah, right, like that is going to happen.

Immie

that is incorrect. He said he would set a goal of a nuclear free world and he would negotiate with Russia and others to eliminate arsenals. He NEVER said he would eliminate our nuclear arsenal unilaterally.

glockmail

02-27-2008, 09:43 AM

and there is a significant difference between updating our delivery systems and adding more nukes to our arsenal Obama also said he would slow the development of new weapons systems. That would result in more US soldiers killed in our next conflict.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 09:50 AM

Obama also said he would slow the development of new weapons systems. That would result in more US soldiers killed in our next conflict.
prove it.

glockmail

02-27-2008, 09:55 AM

prove it.

:lol:

Are you denying that we will be in a future conflict?

Are you also denying that a technological superiority puts us at an advantage?

:lol:

I'll wait while you ponder those.

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 09:56 AM

that is incorrect. He said he would set a goal of a nuclear free world and he would negotiate with Russia and others to eliminate arsenals. He NEVER said he would eliminate our nuclear arsenal unilaterally.

That's not how I heard it. What he was saying to me was that he would eliminate our arsenal AND stop other defense programs AND work on worldwide disarmanent. A worthy dream no doubt, but not one that is attainable at least not now.

At least that is how I understood him.

Immie

stephanie

02-27-2008, 10:09 AM

retiredman

02-27-2008, 10:09 AM

That's not how I heard it. What he was saying to me was that he would eliminate our arsenal AND stop other defense programs AND work on worldwide disarmanent. A worthy dream no doubt, but not one that is attainable at least not now.

At least that is how I understood him.

Immie

listen again. He never says anything about unilateral disarmament...nor did he say anything about STOPPING other defense programs other than starwars and the bush dream to weaponize space.

glockmail

02-27-2008, 10:12 AM

retiredman

02-27-2008, 10:12 AM

He's going to wave his magic wand(cause we all know he can unite the WHOLE WORLD), and stop Iran, North Korea and China from making those big bad weapons, and we will all sing kumbaya in a nuclear cloud...:cheers2:

flatulent rhetoric that sheds much more heat than light.... we have a technology advantage in nuclear weapons delivery systems (with our FBM sub force alone) that will take Iran, North Korea or China decades to even get close to.

stephanie

02-27-2008, 10:15 AM

flatulent rhetoric that sheds much more heat than light.... we have a technology advantage in nuclear weapons delivery systems (with our FBM sub force alone) that will take Iran, North Korea or China decades to even get close to.

so a straight up question for you.......you would trust and vote for him as our President of the United states??

retiredman

02-27-2008, 10:16 AM

:lol:

Are you denying that we will be in a future conflict?

Are you also denying that a technological superiority puts us at an advantage?

:lol:

I'll wait while you ponder those.

1. no

2. I suggest we already possess overwhelming technological superiority over any of our potential enemies

again:

this is your claim:

"That would result in more US soldiers killed in our next conflict."

I again ask you to prove your claim.

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 10:25 AM

listen again. He never says anything about unilateral disarmament...nor did he say anything about STOPPING other defense programs other than starwars and the bush dream to weaponize space.

I thought it was Reagan's dream?

I can't listen now, but I will say I didn't like what he was saying. Maybe I mis-understood him. As I said in my first post, I didn't even believe he was saying it. This came from Youtube. I wasn't even sure he actually said any of that. Youtube is not exactly a website I trust for accurate videos. This could have been put together by anyone for all I know.

As for my comments about what we need, in response to your question. I wasn't going off Obama's statements. I was giving you my opinion as to what we need. We need enough to be a deterant to others. That range is not for me to decide.

Immie

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 10:29 AM

I wouldn't be too concerned---it's all election year rhetoric. He can't or won't do 95% of the things he is saying anyway should he be elected. They never do.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 10:37 AM

so a straight up question for you.......you would trust and vote for him as our President of the United states??

yes

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 10:41 AM

yes

Of course you will. How many chances do you get to uplift blacks to the presidency after suffering from centuries of being downtrodden. I hope it cures you white quilt.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 10:49 AM

Of course you will. How many chances do you get to uplift blacks to the presidency after suffering from centuries of being downtrodden. I hope it cures you white quilt.

as I said before, Obama's color is absolutely irrelevant to my support of his candidacy. period.

but DO keep casting more heat than light.... you do it so well.
:laugh2:

and I don't HAVE a white QUILT

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 10:54 AM

as I said before, Obama's color is absolutely irrelevant to my support of his candidacy. period.

but DO keep casting more heat than light.... you do it so well.
:laugh2:

and I don't HAVE a white QUILT

ahhhhh----you hate women and Republicans so he's the only choice left.:laugh2:

retiredman

02-27-2008, 10:57 AM

ahhhhh----you hate women and Republicans so he's the only choice left.:laugh2:

I will be perfectly happy to vote for Hillary.

I am, however, worried that she mobilizes the right to come out and vote against her in ways that Obama does not...and I think she loses the independents to McCain, which Obama would not.

I had my say...I voted in my caucus. Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island get to have their say next....

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 10:59 AM

I will be perfectly happy to vote for Hillary.

I am, however, worried that she mobilizes the right to come out and vote against her in ways that Obama does not...and I think she loses the independents to McCain, which Obama would not.

I had my say...I voted in my caucus. Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island get to have their say next....

Gotcha--you would vote for a racist or a socialist before you would allow a Republican to be elected.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 11:21 AM

Gotcha--you would vote for a racist or a socialist before you would allow a Republican to be elected.

I don't think either of the democratic candidates is a racist or a socialist, and I do think it is very important to have a democrat in the white house...I think the world will welcome the change... and I think that, with two supreme court justices close to retiring, it is essential to prevent Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas from getting another vote on their side.

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 11:34 AM

I don't think either of the democratic candidates is a racist or a socialist, and I do think it is very important to have a democrat in the white house...I think the world will welcome the change... and I think that, with two supreme court justices close to retiring, it is essential to prevent Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas from getting another vote on their side.

I think a candidate's party affiliation is much less important than his/her honesty, integrity and willingness to sacrifice personal goals for what Americans really want for their country.

avatar4321

02-27-2008, 11:44 AM

avatar4321

02-27-2008, 11:47 AM

I don't think either of the democratic candidates is a racist or a socialist, and I do think it is very important to have a democrat in the white house...I think the world will welcome the change... and I think that, with two supreme court justices close to retiring, it is essential to prevent Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas from getting another vote on their side.

Contrary to Democrat opinion, the world doesnt have that big a problem with President Bush. Nor did they praise the Clinton years in the White House.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 11:52 AM

Contrary to Democrat opinion, the world doesnt have that big a problem with President Bush. Nor did they praise the Clinton years in the White House.

My son is now studying in France. that is not what he says.

my nephew is a translator in Japan. that is not what he says.

I vacationed in Italy last spring and every Italian I met had terrible things to say about Bush.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 11:55 AM

doesn't have to. because even if Russia agrees with us and does it, there are still other nations with the bomb.

and you don't think agreeing with Russia to reduce our nuclear stockpiles to some level where we can only incinerate the entire earth twice instead of ten times is a basically good thing? We have more warheads underwater on FBM's right now than the rest of the nuclear armed nations of the world except for Russia and maybe China.

Obama did not say he would unilaterally disarm in any case.

more pathetic fearmongering from the desperate right.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 11:56 AM

I think a candidate's party affiliation is much less important than his/her honesty, integrity and willingness to sacrifice personal goals for what Americans really want for their country.

I think Americans really want a democrat in office... and they want that knowing their two choices.

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 11:59 AM

I think Americans really want a democrat in office... and they want that knowing their two choices.

Which democrat candidate wants to close the borders and deny amnesty to illegals ? That's one thing Americans agree on in a major way.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 12:01 PM

Which democrat candidate wants to close the borders and deny amnesty to illegals ? That's one thing Americans agree on in a major way.

let me rephrase:
I think A MAJORITY of Americans really want a democrat in office... and they want that knowing their two choices.

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 12:03 PM

let me rephrase:
I think A MAJORITY of Americans really want a democrat in office... and they want that knowing their two choices.

try answering my question.

Immanuel

02-27-2008, 12:09 PM

I think Americans really want a democrat in office... and they want that knowing their two choices.

I don't think so. I don't think most Americans care what party the person they vote for is affiliated with. I think most Americans want a person they trust and like at the controls.

I think that the only reason most Americans vote either Republican or Democrat is because those are the only two choices available. Give us a viable third and/or fourth party or eliminate the party system all together and I think you will find that the parties are not what is important in most people's lives.

Immie

retiredman

02-27-2008, 12:14 PM

try answering my question.
neither

I bet you're glad the republican does....

oh wait...he doesn't!

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 12:21 PM

I don't think so. I don't think most Americans care what party the person they vote for is affiliated with. I think most Americans want a person they trust and like at the controls.

I think that the only reason most Americans vote either Republican or Democrat is because those are the only two choices available. Give us a viable third and/or fourth party or eliminate the party system all together and I think you will find that the parties are not what is important in most people's lives.

Immie

Agreed---Americans are wising up to the fact that both parties have been screwing our country for years now yet we are continually stuck with voting for who they cram in our faces.

Dilloduck

02-27-2008, 12:23 PM

neither

I bet you're glad the republican does....

oh wait...he doesn't!

Absolutley right-----so much for candidates being concerned about what Americans want. They want sovereignty---not being sold down the river to globalism.

hjmick

02-27-2008, 12:29 PM

I don't think so. I don't think most Americans care what party the person they vote for is affiliated with. I think most Americans want a person they trust and like at the controls.

I think that the only reason most Americans vote either Republican or Democrat is because those are the only two choices available. Give us a viable third and/or fourth party or eliminate the party system all together and I think you will find that the parties are not what is important in most people's lives.

Immie

That's where I am, longing for a viable third party that cares more for the people and the country than they do power.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 01:18 PM

Absolutley right-----so much for candidates being concerned about what Americans want. They want sovereignty---not being sold down the river to globalism.

most polls do not show immigration to be the top priority for American voters, however.... so...take your pick. All three candidates are pretty much alike on the issue of immigration so I guess you'll have to decide based upon something else,

theHawk

02-27-2008, 01:42 PM

glockmail

02-27-2008, 01:55 PM

1. no

2. I suggest we already possess overwhelming technological superiority over any of our potential enemies

again:

this is your claim:

"That would result in more US soldiers killed in our next conflict."

I again ask you to prove your claim.

Are you then denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?

I'll wait while you ponder that.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 02:05 PM

Are you then denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?

I'll wait while you ponder that.

I do not think there is any practical consequence to our lessing the pace of our military industrial complex's pursuit of new and more effective weapons systems. It is already akin to us having guns and the rest of the world having spears. Our defense budget under President Obama will still be larger that the GNP of most of the nations on earth. Even at a "reduced pace" we will still be able to maintain our overwhelming military technological dominance, in my opinion.

Now...when will you prove your claim:

"That would result in more US soldiers killed in our next conflict."

it would seem to me, that on its face it is only speculation, because you have no idea who our next adversary may be and whether they are more or less technologically capable than our current one, so the use of the word "more" seems rhetorical and flatulent.

Pale Rider

02-27-2008, 06:20 PM

Wow, so this shitbag really does plan on gutting the military even more than Clinton did. Of course this jackass has absolutely no way of enforcing his "no nuclear" weapons policy on foreign nations. Oh yea, they'll do as he asks because he isn't a Republican and he is the self appointed agent of change for the world.

This just goes to show how stupid liberal foreign policy is, and the sad part is that they never learn. We all know of Carter's completely abysmal foreign policy which led to the Iran hostage situation, freed only after it was clear Reagan was going to take office. Clinton ignored attack after attack on our country and troops which emboldened Osama and his outfit and eventually led to 9/11. And JFK nearly brought our country to the brink of nuclear annihilation because he appeared weak and that emboldened the USSR to park missiles in Cuba, not to mention the botched Bay of Pigs and JFK's brilliant idea of not providing US air support in the operation.

Liberal foreign policy always has been, and always will be a disaster for the US. A weak President only ensures that our enemies will be encouraged to step up their plans to weaken our nation or outright attack us.

I agree with everything you've said, including saying *HUSSEIN* obama bin laden is a shitbag. Yup... he's downright fuckin' scary. I'm very afraid for our country right now with so many liberals supporting socialist pustules like that. *HUSSEIN* stands bold faced to the country purporting how they will fuck this country up, all to the wild, starry eyed gazes and applause of his supporters. It's an incredibly frustrating thing to behold.

The only thing I'd say different is, we don't need to be going around the world picking fights with every sorry ass little third world dictator just because there's oil beneath him, and we need to get out of this nation building business. That is NOT what this country is about, and it is NOT in our constitution. Screw Iraq. I agree we need to get the hell out of there and whatever happens after we leave, let it happen. Unless there's a direct attack on America, it's none of our business. But... BUT... that in no shape, way or form inclines that I believe as *HUSSEIN* obama bin laden. Quite the contrary. I think we should all but DOUBLE our military budget and troop levels. I believe we should have a standing army that could fight on two major battle fronts, something we can't do at the present. But only fight if we NEED to.

glockmail

02-27-2008, 07:33 PM

I do not think there is any practical consequence to our lessing the pace of our military industrial complex's pursuit of new and more effective weapons systems. It is already akin to us having guns and the rest of the world having spears. Our defense budget under President Obama will still be larger that the GNP of most of the nations on earth. Even at a "reduced pace" we will still be able to maintain our overwhelming military technological dominance, in my opinion.

Now...when will you prove your claim:

"That would result in more US soldiers killed in our next conflict."

it would seem to me, that on its face it is only speculation, because you have no idea who our next adversary may be and whether they are more or less technologically capable than our current one, so the use of the word "more" seems rhetorical and flatulent.

I see you're already preparing to woose out with your "opinion" crap again. Whouda thunk?

So for the second time, are you denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?

I'll wait again while you ponder that.

glockmail

02-27-2008, 07:39 PM

....
The only thing I'd say different is, we don't need to be going around the world picking fights with every sorry ass little third world dictator just because there's oil beneath him, and we need to get out of this nation building business. That is NOT what this country is about, and it is NOT in our constitution. .... I agree, but until we elect a conservative president and congressional majority with the balls to stand up to the Democrat environmental pussies, and build 300 or so new nuke plants, drill for oil and gas in our own country, and put up windmills with Teddy Kennedy's picture on them, we will be forced to make the Arabs rich and be over there to babysit their camel humping asses.

Yurt

02-27-2008, 08:03 PM

i am beginning to think if it comes to mccain and obama, i am not going to vote for who i actually want, for to me, it is more important that i vote for mccain as long as it keeps obama out of office.

Pale Rider

02-27-2008, 08:15 PM

I agree, but until we elect a conservative president and congressional majority with the balls to stand up to the Democrat environmental pussies, and build 300 or so new nuke plants, drill for oil and gas in our own country, and put up windmills with Teddy Kennedy's picture on them, we will be forced to make the Arabs rich and be over there to babysit their camel humping asses.

Most unfortunately, and as much as I hate it, your post above is pretty much the disgusting truth.

retiredman

02-27-2008, 09:13 PM

So for the second time, are you denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?

I'll wait again while you ponder that.

Obama said he would "slow the development of future combat systems".

He didn't say he would curtail it.

You will need to prove that, at our slowed pace, that our potential enemies were involved in developing future combat systems faster than we were. If even the slowed pace of development by our massive military industrial complex is still faster than any development being conducted by those potential enemies, then they would continue to fall behind us.

If you slow a sports car down a bit, it still outpaces the rickshaw, doesn't it?:poke:

Yurt

02-27-2008, 09:51 PM

Obama said he would "slow the development of future combat systems".

He didn't say he would curtail it.

You will need to prove that, at our slowed pace, that our potential enemies were involved in developing future combat systems faster than we were. If even the slowed pace of development by our massive military industrial complex is still faster than any development being conducted by those potential enemies, then they would continue to fall behind us.

If you slow a sports car down a bit, it still outpaces the rickshaw, doesn't it?:poke:

curtail:
to make less by or as if by cutting off or away some part <curtail the power of the executive branch

when he said slow he meant curtail and his plans would in fact curtail US power and safety. your attempt to use big words has failed you again.

Gaffer

02-27-2008, 09:57 PM

The better our systems are the easier it is to defend ourselves against our enemies and maybe save lives. Why should we slow down our development so they can catch up to us. It's not a competition to see who can have the neatest toys. It's preparation for war and killing. It's also not a matter of being unfair because we have super technology over them. Fuck fair. Being fair is for sporting events, not war.

nevadamedic

02-28-2008, 01:12 AM

retiredman

02-28-2008, 07:31 AM

curtail:
to make less by or as if by cutting off or away some part <curtail the power of the executive branch

when he said slow he meant curtail and his plans would in fact curtail US power and safety. your attempt to use big words has failed you again.

and please tell me, oh wise one, how you know that when he said "slow" he really meant "curtail"? Can I do that for any words that John Sindey McCain uses? Can I say when he says he doesn't understand economics very well, that what he really meant was that he doesn't understand basic arithmetic? How's that work.

Barack said SLOW. Slow does not mean stop.

Again....a sports car going down the road in second gear is still a hell of a lot faster than a rickshaw.

glockmail

02-28-2008, 09:26 AM

Obama said he would "slow the development of future combat systems".

He didn't say he would curtail it.

You will need to prove that, at our slowed pace, that our potential enemies were involved in developing future combat systems faster than we were. If even the slowed pace of development by our massive military industrial complex is still faster than any development being conducted by those potential enemies, then they would continue to fall behind us.

If you slow a sports car down a bit, it still outpaces the rickshaw, doesn't it?:poke: Dumb analogy by you yet again. War isn't a race where the guy who crosses the finish line one second ahead takes all.

Better equipped soldiers get in and out quicker with more lethality on the enemy at lower risk to themselves. We are or will be developing third generation stealth, pilot-less fighters, micro-surveillance vehicles, and guns that aim themselves and shoot around corners. Are you denying that these and similar advanced weapons systems will not save American lives?

I’ll wait while you ponder that.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 09:30 AM

Dumb analogy by you yet again. War isn't a race where the guy who crosses the finish line one second ahead takes all.

Better equipped soldiers get in and out quicker with more lethality on the enemy at lower risk to themselves. We are or will be developing third generation stealth, pilot-less fighters, micro-surveillance vehicles, and guns that aim themselves and shoot around corners. Are you denying that these and similar advanced weapons systems will not save American lives?

I’ll wait while you ponder that.

one second? I am suggesting that, even at a pace of new weapons system development that is slowed slightly by Obama, we will continue to outpace our potential enemies and increase our tactical advantage.

and all my analogies are "dumb" to you when you can't counter them. LOL

glockmail

02-28-2008, 09:46 AM

one second? I am suggesting that, even at a pace of new weapons system development that is slowed slightly by Obama, we will continue to outpace our potential enemies and increase our tactical advantage.

and all my analogies are "dumb" to you when you can't counter them. LOL Your analogy is obviously dumb, even to you now, as you failed to address my point:

"Better equipped soldiers get in and out quicker with more lethality on the enemy at lower risk to themselves. We are or will be developing third generation stealth, pilot-less fighters, micro-surveillance vehicles, and guns that aim themselves and shoot around corners. Are you denying that these and similar advanced weapons systems will not save American lives?

I’ll wait while you ponder that." :poke:

retiredman

02-28-2008, 09:55 AM

Your analogy is obviously dumb, even to you now, as you failed to address my point:

"Better equipped soldiers get in and out quicker with more lethality on the enemy at lower risk to themselves. We are or will be developing third generation stealth, pilot-less fighters, micro-surveillance vehicles, and guns that aim themselves and shoot around corners. Are you denying that these and similar advanced weapons systems will not save American lives?

I’ll wait while you ponder that." :poke:

why would you think that Obama would not develop those systems?

my analogy is accurate. If we have a relative technological advantage today, and if we develop new weapons systems at a rate, that while reduced slightly from its previous rate, still is faster than our potential enemies, our relative advantage will increase, and not decrease.

sports cars, even in second gear, go faster than rickshaws. fact.

glockmail

02-28-2008, 09:59 AM

why would you think that Obama would not develop those systems?

my analogy is accurate. If we have a relative technological advantage today, and if we develop new weapons systems at a rate, that while reduced slightly from its previous rate, still is faster than our potential enemies, our relative advantage will increase, and not decrease.

sports cars, even in second gear, go faster than rickshaws. fact.

Obama Hussein said that he would slow down the rate of development. How hard is that for you to understand?

OMG you're still on that stupid race car analogy? Are you really that dense?Sorry pal, but I don't have time to teach you the lesson over again. But, lucky for you, you can re-read my earlier posts.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 10:04 AM

Obama Hussein said that he would slow down the rate of development. How hard is that for you to understand?

OMG you're still on that stupid race car analogy? Are you really that dense?Sorry pal, but I don't have time to teach you the lesson over again. But, lucky for you, you can re-read my earlier posts.

slow down does not mean stop. I suggest that, even at a somewhat reduced pace, our deveopment will still outstrip our potential adversaries, thus maintaining and increasing our relative technological advantage.

JohnDoe

02-28-2008, 10:17 AM

I don't believe one iota that we are moving towards an era of nuclear armament again, I don't think the russians or the Chinese would use them against us because we can already blow up the entire world more than a THOUSAND TIMES with all of our nukes, not 2 times or 5 times or even 20 times or 100 times, but we have enough nukes to blow up the Earth over 1000 times is what i have read?

We need to slow down this process....Nukes are NOT HOW the Chinese and the Russians are going to attack us, they are going to manipulate the global economy to outsmart us....the Chinese are bringing us down just with the manipulation of currency and the Russians by making deals with oil rich countries securing their energy by making allegiences with many of our enemies.

We are wasting billions in tax monies expanding nukes at the rates we have been and the rates we are...when the nuke that WILL PROBABLY be used on US, will be a dirty bomb, nukes made from all the leftover nukes out there that are no longer being guarded, like the russian nukes.... getting in to the hands of terrorists.

I think any president that we get, repub or Dem, should recognize this....

jd

glockmail

02-28-2008, 10:19 AM

slow down does not mean stop. I suggest that, even at a somewhat reduced pace, our deveopment will still outstrip our potential adversaries, thus maintaining and increasing our relative technological advantage.

Slowing down means exactly that: slowing down. Which means that our technological advantage would not be as great as it could otherwise be. Therefore our next war would take longer, our kill efficiencies would be reduced, and our soldiers would be at more of a risk. Thus more US lives would be lost.

It's really a very simple trail of logic. Didn't they teach you how to think that way at naval college?

JohnDoe

02-28-2008, 10:24 AM

retiredman

02-28-2008, 10:42 AM

Slowing down means exactly that: slowing down. Which means that our technological advantage would not be as great as it could otherwise be. Therefore our next war would take longer, our kill efficiencies would be reduced, and our soldiers would be at more of a risk. Thus more US lives would be lost.

It's really a very simple trail of logic. Didn't they teach you how to think that way at naval college?

and if we quadrupled our spending on new weapons systems we could get even further ahead.... I realize... if we spent every single dime in the defense budget on new weapons systems and didn't build a single new barrack or mess hall, we could REALLY get even further ahead.

However. you said: "Are you then denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?"

again...if we have an advantage today...and, even at a slightly slowed pace, our rate of technological advancement is still greater than our potential enemies, then it is impossible for them to "move closer to our technological superiority"

I am ten miles ahead of you. You are travelling at 10 MPH, I am travelling at 30MPH. If I slow down to 20MPH, will you get closer to me, or will the distance between us continue to increase? Will you "move closer"?

retiredman

02-28-2008, 10:58 AM

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11663

"The Fiscal Year 2009 budget requests $183.8 billion in modernization to meet future threats, an $8.3 billion increase or 4.7 percent over the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level of $175.5 billion. This includes procurement, as well as research and development"

You cannot show me a potential adversary who spends a quarter as much. We could significantly reduce our R&D budget and still continue to increase our technological advantage and move further from any of those opponents in technological superiority. You are wrong. wrong. and wrong.

oh...and did I say...wrong?:laugh2:

Lee~*

02-28-2008, 12:39 PM

Obama would hand this country over to Muslim terrorists, no questions asked. But lots of Americans will probably vote for him out of racial guilt.

Thats what I've been thinking, and everyone just gives me the "aw, come on now, nothing like that could possible happen" look ...

A. I wouldn't put anything past the Muslim extremists in their pursuit of their Jihad.

B. I fear the "racial guilt" may well get alot of votes, and although I do agree that it may be "time" for a woman or a black to be the president, that should not be the only reason for voting for one!

Great point Hugh Lincoln! :clap: Lee ... going back now for more :coffee:

glockmail

02-28-2008, 01:10 PM

Anything GREATER than necessary is too much....and wasting our tax monies.

it could be as Great or not as great or even better than great...all depends on how much money you want to waste imo... the entire budget could be spent on it....as i said, anything greater than what is necessary is too much.

jd

How much money is an American soldier's life worth, in your opinion?

glockmail

02-28-2008, 01:11 PM

and if we quadrupled our spending on new weapons systems we could get even further ahead.... I realize... if we spent every single dime in the defense budget on new weapons systems and didn't build a single new barrack or mess hall, we could REALLY get even further ahead.

However. you said: "Are you then denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?"

again...if we have an advantage today...and, even at a slightly slowed pace, our rate of technological advancement is still greater than our potential enemies, then it is impossible for them to "move closer to our technological superiority"

I am ten miles ahead of you. You are travelling at 10 MPH, I am travelling at 30MPH. If I slow down to 20MPH, will you get closer to me, or will the distance between us continue to increase? Will you "move closer"?Slowing down means exactly that: slowing down. Which means that our technological advantage would not be as great as it could otherwise be. Therefore our next war would take longer, our kill efficiencies would be reduced, and our soldiers would be at more of a risk. Thus more US lives would be lost.

It's really a very simple trail of logic. Didn't they teach you how to think that way at naval college?

Yurt

02-28-2008, 01:21 PM

and please tell me, oh wise one, how you know that when he said "slow" he really meant "curtail"? Can I do that for any words that John Sindey McCain uses? Can I say when he says he doesn't understand economics very well, that what he really meant was that he doesn't understand basic arithmetic? How's that work.

Barack said SLOW. Slow does not mean stop.

Again....a sports car going down the road in second gear is still a hell of a lot faster than a rickshaw.

this is guy that did not recognize the difference between rejection and denunciation.... it is highly likely that in this instance he further does not understand the difference. in my last post i also told you that, in reality, his plan would in fact curtail our safety. i posted the definition of curtail for you in that post, do you have any dispute with the definition? if not, don't you think it fits exactly what obama wants to do?

curtail

to cut short; cut off a part of; abridge; reduce; diminish

Gaffer

02-28-2008, 01:35 PM

JohnDoe

02-28-2008, 02:10 PM

How much money is an American soldier's life worth, in your opinion?as much money as is necessary, but not a dollar more, spending more infringes upon our freedoms by taking our hard earned money away from us to waste on some congressman's favored contractor, making him wealthy with our money....that is immoral too ya know? ;)

we need good stewards of our money.

jd

rppearso

02-28-2008, 02:28 PM

as much money as is necessary, but not a dollar more, spending more infringes upon our freedoms by taking our hard earned money away from us to waste on some congressman's favored contractor, making him wealthy with our money....that is immoral too ya know? ;)

we need good stewards of our money.

jd

I believe the servicemans life insurance is worth 250,000$ before taxes.

JohnDoe

02-28-2008, 02:35 PM

I believe the servicemans life insurance is worth 250,000$ before taxes.
I don't think that is enough Insurance for them if they are sent to combat....it should be higher.

Is the gvt playing the insurer themselves or do they take out a policy with a private insurance company for them, do you know?

jd

Abbey Marie

02-28-2008, 02:37 PM

I just noticed the comic aspect of the thread title. I understand Barry is actually quite disarming.

JohnDoe

02-28-2008, 02:54 PM

obama is not talking about nukes in his speech. He's talking about technological advances over all. Including space based programs like spy satellites and GPS systems. It's not nukes that are being developed. Just periodically upgraded. It's the new systems being developed for the soldiers that he is looking to "curtail". Like carter he intends to cripple our military. Can you imagine the ROE's he will institute.Well, not to make this partisan but you can thank President Bush and all of his extraordinary execultive orders that he claims to trump most anything that Congress does, and the cowardly Democrats in congress not giving oversight or have the balls to take it to the supreme court, then Obama if President, will have all the power in the world to do what he wants.... anyone who becomes our next president begins with alot more executive power than President Bush began with or Clinton began with....BUT THAT has changed, and we let it change because we did not scream loud enough when it was or is, happening imho.

As far as cutting where technology is going, i believe that would be wrong. There is more than enough money out there in the budget to pursue such and some imo, while still cutting the waste out of our overall Defense/Military/pentegon/homeland security budgets.

I don't know if you have watched some of the hearings on capital hill the past 7 years with the billions being shown to have been wasted in our Defense budgets or just plain LOST, lost money that they just can't figure out where it went.... there is plenty of money to cut or to fund newer technologies critical to our troops...there really is....!

jd

glockmail

02-28-2008, 03:42 PM

as much money as is necessary, but not a dollar more, spending more infringes upon our freedoms by taking our hard earned money away from us to waste on some congressman's favored contractor, making him wealthy with our money....that is immoral too ya know? ;)

we need good stewards of our money.

jd Based on historic levels of military spending vs GDP, it then appears that we are not spending enough.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 04:03 PM

this is guy that did not recognize the difference between rejection and denunciation.... it is highly likely that in this instance he further does not understand the difference. in my last post i also told you that, in reality, his plan would in fact curtail our safety. i posted the definition of curtail for you in that post, do you have any dispute with the definition? if not, don't you think it fits exactly what obama wants to do?
curtail

I have a problem with you putting words in his mouth. yes. You could quote the definition for hippopotamus if you'd like...but he didn't say that either.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 04:09 PM

glockmail

02-28-2008, 04:13 PM

you were the one who said:

"Are you then denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?"

YOUR WORDS.

and I say again. If I am already ahead of you and going four times faster than you are, and I slow down to only going three times faster than you are, you will NOT move closer. That's a fact. If you can't write better, that's not my fault.
:lol: Talk about mincing words!

Look, this whole thing started back in post 34. You asked me to prove it, and I did. You got your ass handed to you. So stop being such a ninny. :pee:

retiredman

02-28-2008, 04:19 PM

:lol: Talk about mincing words!

Look, this whole thing started back in post 34. You asked me to prove it, and I did. You got your ass handed to you. So stop being such a ninny. :pee:

what are you talking about? you have proven nothing except your own inability to use the language with any level of precision.

They will not move closer. period.

As I said, our DoD R&D budget is more than most country's GDP. NO potential enemy - especially state-less extremist groups - can spend even a petite fraction on R&D what the DoD spends it. Obama could slice R&D to the bone and it would still outstrip our "potential enemies".

Yurt

02-28-2008, 04:23 PM

I have a problem with you putting words in his mouth. yes. You could quote the definition for hippopotamus if you'd like...but he didn't say that either.

i did NOT put words in his mouth. you falsely portraying my post and being intellectually dishonest.

again, you failed to address the definition of curtail and how it fits his plan and his words.

edit: this argument is silly, whether you MFM thinks there is a difference between "slow" and "curtail" over his speech is irrelevent to the reality of his plan.

theHawk

02-28-2008, 04:43 PM

I'm sure if Obama was asked, he'd gladly say he'd both curtail and slow the progress of military weapon systems development.

:lol:

retiredman

02-28-2008, 04:59 PM

i did NOT put words in his mouth. you falsely portraying my post and being intellectually dishonest.

again, you failed to address the definition of curtail and how it fits his plan and his words.

edit: this argument is silly, whether you MFM thinks there is a difference between "slow" and "curtail" over his speech is irrelevent to the reality of his plan.

he wants to slow the development of new weapons systems.

Again..if we already spend more on R&D that any three of our potential enemies combined, we will not lose our lead or shrink the gap between us and any of them by slowing somewhat.

again...a sports car in second gear will still increase its lead over a rickshaw any day.

glockmail

02-28-2008, 05:06 PM

.....

As I said, our DoD R&D budget is more than most country's GDP. NO potential enemy - especially state-less extremist groups - can spend even a petite fraction on R&D what the DoD spends it. Obama could slice R&D to the bone and it would still outstrip our "potential enemies".

Slicing military R&D "to the bone" means that our technological advantage would not be as great as it could otherwise be. Therefore our next war would take longer, our kill efficiencies would be reduced, and our soldiers would be at more of a risk. Thus more US lives would be lost.

Are you still denying that? :laugh2: :laugh2:

Gaffer

02-28-2008, 05:14 PM

What do you do prior to stopping completely, you slow down. Even a rickshaw can pass a stopped Ferrari.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 08:48 PM

Slicing military R&D "to the bone" means that our technological advantage would not be as great as it could otherwise be. Therefore our next war would take longer, our kill efficiencies would be reduced, and our soldiers would be at more of a risk. Thus more US lives would be lost.

Are you still denying that? :laugh2: :laugh2:

your words:

"Are you then denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?"

We could spend every single penny in our treasury on weapons. We could stop paying social security, we could stop funding medicare, we could stop building bridges, we could make everyone in congress work for no pay...and use it all to research and develop and build fantastic space lasers and particle rays and force fields that would protect American against everyone without ever putting a single American GI's life on the line.

Or, we could melt down all our rifles and projectiles and beat our swords into plowshares thus letting everyone catch up to our technological superiority and thus be defenseless.

Obviously, neither of those ends of the spectrum are acceptable... so let's go somewhere inbetween. Maintaining and increasing our technological superiority is a good idea. I support it. So does Obama.

YOU said that if we slowed down our development of weapons systems, our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority. Those were your words. They were inaccurate.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 08:49 PM

What do you do prior to stopping completely, you slow down. Even a rickshaw can pass a stopped Ferrari.

irrelevant.

I would not support stopping, and neither would Barak Obama.

glockmail

02-28-2008, 09:04 PM

your words:

"Are you then denying that our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage?"

We could spend every single penny in our treasury on weapons. We could stop paying social security, we could stop funding medicare, we could stop building bridges, we could make everyone in congress work for no pay...and use it all to research and develop and build fantastic space lasers and particle rays and force fields that would protect American against everyone without ever putting a single American GI's life on the line.

Or, we could melt down all our rifles and projectiles and beat our swords into plowshares thus letting everyone catch up to our technological superiority and thus be defenseless.

Obviously, neither of those ends of the spectrum are acceptable... so let's go somewhere inbetween. Maintaining and increasing our technological superiority is a good idea. I support it. So does Obama.

YOU said that if we slowed down our development of weapons systems, our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority. Those were your words. They were inaccurate. Post 34. You fucked up.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 09:17 PM

Post 34. You fucked up.

you, of course, have PROVEN nothing...but you DID step on your dick in post 68.

still hurts, eh?:lol:

glockmail

02-28-2008, 09:25 PM

you, of course, have PROVEN nothing...but you DID step on your dick in post 68.

still hurts, eh?:lol: You sucked on your dick on post 34.

retiredman

02-28-2008, 09:29 PM

You sucked on your dick on post 34.

you have proven nothing, and have made a clearly inaccurate statement.

sorry

trobinett

02-28-2008, 09:36 PM

you have proven nothing, and have made a clearly inaccurate statement.

sorry

What are you SORRY about, that there was an inaccurate statement, or that you were called on it?

Yurt

02-28-2008, 09:56 PM

he wants to slow the development of new weapons systems.

Again..if we already spend more on R&D that any three of our potential enemies combined, we will not lose our lead or shrink the gap between us and any of them by slowing somewhat.

again...a sports car in second gear will still increase its lead over a rickshaw any day.

doesn't your "tired" analogy assume that the rickshaw never improves the engine?

you again, fail to address my the definition of curtail....not surprising though, hey, since you are so dead set on this silly notion that curtail is the wrong word, how about we use:

retard

he wants to retard america's safety and weaponry.

got a problem with that?

retiredman

02-28-2008, 11:06 PM

doesn't your "tired" analogy assume that the rickshaw never improves the engine?

you again, fail to address my the definition of curtail....not surprising though, hey, since you are so dead set on this silly notion that curtail is the wrong word, how about we use:

retard

he wants to retard america's safety and weaponry.

got a problem with that?

again...why should we talk about your definition of curtail. you are the only one to use the word.

And again...do you not think that, if the rickshaw developed an engine that Obama would shift gears????

Why not use the word that he used and not quit playing fucking word games? He used slow. He didn't use curtail. He didn't use retard. He didn't use stop. He used slow...and if we are already spending four and five times as much on military R&D than our competitors, how is slowing to some level where we are only doubling their output and increasing our technological advantage by some lesser degree necessarily a BAD thing?

Again...we could spend every penny on new weapons and not have a dime for anything else in our budget.... develop space lasers and particle beams and force fields and transporters right out of star wars... and be protected from all the nasty people on the planet...and starve to death inside our bubble...

or we could beat all of our swords into plowshares and give up.

OR...we could maintain our technological advantage at some level in between those two extremes.

p.s. gosh..I hope that wasn't too "intellectually dishonest" for you! :laugh2:

Yurt

02-28-2008, 11:48 PM

manfrommaine;209780]again...why should we talk about your definition of curtail. you are the only one to use the word.

it is the dictionaries word and definition and the definition as I have repeatedly showed you is exactly what he plans. he is a politician that doesn't know what words mean as i have repeatedly showed you (reject/denounce).

so if a politician says a word, but in reality they mean something else, i should just blindly listen their word? that is intellectual dishonesty at its best there MFM

And again...do you not think that, if the rickshaw developed an engine that Obama would shift gears????

no i don't. and don't you think that if he has retarded/curtailed our modern war systems that this in fact makes it harder to shift gears. are you really comparing the national military to a car gear shift box?

Why not use the word that he used and not quit playing fucking word games? He used slow. He didn't use curtail. He didn't use retard. He didn't use stop. He used slow...and if we are already spending four and five times as much on military R&D than our competitors, how is slowing to some level where we are only doubling their output and increasing our technological advantage by some lesser degree necessarily a BAD thing?

pull out a dictionary, it will enlighten your life. slow and retard have the same meaning, you however, love your candidates choice of word and seem to think other words with the same meaning are somehow wrong. why should i use his words? are you limiting ideas here? how can you trust him when he doesn't even know the difference between denounce and reject?

Again...we could spend every penny on new weapons and not have a dime for anything else in our budget.... develop space lasers and particle beams and force fields and transporters right out of star wars... and be protected from all the nasty people on the planet...and starve to death inside our bubble...

or we could beat all of our swords into plowshares and give up.

OR...we could maintain our technological advantage at some level in between those two extremes.

p.s. gosh..I hope that wasn't too "intellectually dishonest" for you! :laugh2:

no, typical response from you where you ignore over half of what i say....and hang on every word of your dreamy hussany

retiredman

02-29-2008, 12:04 AM

it is the dictionaries word and definition and the definition as I have repeatedly showed you is exactly what he plans. he is a politician that doesn't know what words mean as i have repeatedly showed you (reject/denounce).

again...why put the word "curtail" or "retard" in his mouth, post the definitions to THOSE words, and then ask me to defend them? Why not stick with the words he used

so if a politician says a word, but in reality they mean something else, i should just blindly listen their word? that is intellectual dishonesty at its best there MFM
how the FUCK do you claim to know what "in reality" Obama means? Do you have some fucking cyrstal ball????
no i don't. and don't you think that if he has retarded/curtailed our modern war systems that this in fact makes it harder to shift gears. are you really comparing the national military to a car gear shift box?
again... do you really not see the ability to trade a few guns for a little butter when you are the only guy on the planet with fancy guns and everyone else has spears? Do you really think that slowing the voracious appetite of the military industrial complex for our tax dollars will make that complex become anorexic and unable to chow down again at a moment's notice?

pull out a dictionary, it will enlighten your life. slow and retard have the same meaning, you however, love your candidates choice of word and seem to think other words with the same meaning are somehow wrong. why should i use his words? are you limiting ideas here? how can you trust him when he doesn't even know the difference between denounce and reject?

If we are discussing HIS remarks, why not stick to HIS words.

He does know the difference. He has denounced Farrakhan. Farrakhan offered nothing that could be rejected.

manu1959

02-29-2008, 12:05 AM

yurt....mfm sees the dictonary as a living document.........

Yurt

02-29-2008, 12:07 AM

retiredman

02-29-2008, 12:09 AM

calm down. i have posted the definition of curtail twice, obviously you ignore over half of what i say. and if you have look up the definition of retard, then you seriously need to open a dictionary, i will not do all your work for you, you must learn on your own.

until you do, i will not respond further because we are going in circles.

post the definition of another five hundred words that he did NOT say... my response will be the same. If we are going to criticize the statements of Obama, use the words in his statements...not your own.

Yurt

02-29-2008, 12:16 AM

post the definition of another five hundred words that he did NOT say... my response will be the same. If we are going to criticize the statements of Obama, use the words in his statements...not your own.

are you dense? he doesn't even know the difference between reject and denounce how can you trust him?

this is the 4th time MFM. just the other day/week/month (don't remember exactly) you complained to me about not replying to "all" of your posts. i said i usually just get to the meat and reply as i don't always like to read alot as it is what i pretty much do all day, however, i told you i would give YOU that courtesy.

should i reject that offer or should i denounce that offer?

retiredman

02-29-2008, 12:34 AM

are you dense? he doesn't even know the difference between reject and denounce how can you trust him?

this is the 4th time MFM. just the other day/week/month (don't remember exactly) you complained to me about not replying to "all" of your posts. i said i usually just get to the meat and reply as i don't always like to read alot as it is what i pretty much do all day, however, i told you i would give YOU that courtesy.

should i reject that offer or should i denounce that offer?

what did reverend Farrakhan "offer" that Obama could "reject"?

Yurt

02-29-2008, 12:51 AM

what did reverend Farrakhan "offer" that Obama could "reject"?

asked and answered

see you on another subject

Yurt

02-29-2008, 01:08 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=209851#post209851

WRL

02-29-2008, 03:36 AM

Wow that is disturbing...

glockmail

02-29-2008, 08:39 AM

What are you SORRY about, that there was an inaccurate statement, or that you were called on it?
Actually he attempted to call me on it (post 34), and soundly got his ass handed to him, so now he's got his panties in an uproar.

The fact is, B. Hussein stated that he would slow the pace of military technology. That will, with no doubt, cause more risk to US military personnel during our next conflict.

retiredman

02-29-2008, 12:09 PM

Actually he attempted to call me on it (post 34), and soundly got his ass handed to him, so now he's got his panties in an uproar.

The fact is, B. Hussein stated that he would slow the pace of military technology. That will, with no doubt, cause more risk to US military personnel during our next conflict.

I disagree. Our enemies will NOT close the technology gap. As our technology continues to improve, we will increase the gap and thus increase the safety of - and decrease the risk to - our troops over time.

glockmail

02-29-2008, 12:23 PM

I disagree. Our enemies will NOT close the technology gap. As our technology continues to improve, we will increase the gap and thus increase the safety of - and decrease the risk to - our troops over time.
Keeping the rate of increase of the technology gap the same or better would give US soldiers an even better advantage. Letting the gap lessen would make our future enemy relatively more effective against us. Therefore B. Hussein obviously wants to kill American soldiers, and by your support of him, so do you.

retiredman

02-29-2008, 12:25 PM

Keeping the rate of increase of the technology gap the same or better would give US soldiers an even better advantage. Letting the gap lessen would make our future enemy relatively more effective against us. Therefore B. Hussein obviously wants to kill American soldiers, and by your support of him, so do you.

again...the gap will not lessen.

glockmail

02-29-2008, 12:34 PM

again...the gap will not lessen. You seem unable to understand basic mathematical and logical concepts. We are talking about the increase in the rate, not the rate itself.

To allude to your flawed analogy, we are discussing acceleration, not velocity.

I thought you said that you studied engineering? Anyone with a degree in engineering should understand that basic concept.

retiredman

02-29-2008, 12:37 PM

You seem unable to understand basic mathematical and logical concepts. We are talking about the increase in the rate, not the rate itself.

To allude to your flawed analogy, we are discussing acceleration, not velocity.

I thought you said that you studied engineering? Anyone with a degree in engineering should understand that basic concept.

We are discussing our technology advantage... the GAP between our level of technological advancement and that of our enemies. That GAP will continue to increase. Our enemies will NOT, as you have said, CLOSE that gap or even lessen it.

glockmail

02-29-2008, 12:47 PM

We are discussing our technology advantage... the GAP between our level of technological advancement and that of our enemies. That GAP will continue to increase. Our enemies will NOT, as you have said, CLOSE that gap or even lessen it. You should want that gap to widen even further, at an increasing rate of accelleration. That is the staus quo and will ensure maximum sucess for our soldiers. Anyone who wishes otherwise must also wish for our soldiers to die needlessly.

Funny how liberals whine that a reduction in the increase in social programs as a "cut", then claim a reduction in the increase in miltary programs is an "increase". :pee:

retiredman

02-29-2008, 01:12 PM

You should want that gap to widen even further, at an increasing rate of accelleration. That is the staus quo and will ensure maximum sucess for our soldiers. Anyone who wishes otherwise must also wish for our soldiers to die needlessly.

Funny how liberals whine that a reduction in the increase in social programs as a "cut", then claim a reduction in the increase in miltary programs is an "increase". :pee:

as I said, we could spend every dime in the federal budget on new weapons systems.... and we could design space lasers and photon torpedoes and phasers set to kill.... we could design force fields that would protect us so that none of our troops ever had to even risk a hangnail.

We don't.... because we have many other efforts that need some of our treasure: roads, ports, schools, elderly people, the sick...

Increasing the military technology gap between us and our enemies will continue to make our servicemen safer tomorrow than they are today... that's a good thing.

We will NOT, as you have incorrectly stated, allow our enemies to close that gap. The gap will continue to grow. You were wrong.:laugh2:

glockmail

02-29-2008, 01:34 PM

Funny how liberals whine that a reduction in the increase in social programs as a "cut", then claim a reduction in the increase in miltary programs is an "increase".

retiredman

02-29-2008, 02:43 PM

Funny how liberals whine that a reduction in the increase in social programs as a "cut", then claim a reduction in the increase in miltary programs is an "increase".

your words:

"...our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage"

wrong wrong wrong:laugh2:

Yurt

02-29-2008, 02:50 PM

your words:

"...our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage"

wrong wrong wrong:laugh2:

so, are you rejecting or denouncing his words?

glockmail

02-29-2008, 03:03 PM

your words:

"...our potential enemies would move closer to our technological superiority, thus putting us at a lesser advantage"

wrong wrong wrong:laugh2: Context, context, context. A lesser advantage then we would otherwise be if we kept the same level of technological development. You and B. Hussein must therefore want US soldiers to die. :slap:

retiredman

02-29-2008, 04:49 PM

Context, context, context. A lesser advantage then we would otherwise be if we kept the same level of technological development. You and B. Hussein must therefore want US soldiers to die. :slap:

a greater advantage than today.

glockmail

02-29-2008, 05:06 PM

Not as great as would be without a B. Hussein mandate. :finger3:

Yurt

02-29-2008, 07:42 PM

does anyone know if obama has figured out the difference between rejection and denunciation yet? or any of his followers?

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 07:57 PM

does anyone know if obama has figured out the difference between rejection and denunciation yet? or any of his followers?

Naaa he's worried about the Mexican turnout in Texas ! :laugh2:

JohnDoe

02-29-2008, 08:00 PM

Naaa he's worried about the Mexican turnout in Texas ! :laugh2:he shouldn't be worried about the mex's, he's got a whole coalition of Texas Republicans switching their party to vote for him.... saw it on the news tonight...

jd

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 08:03 PM

he shouldn't be worried about the mex's, he's got a whole coalition of Texas Republicans switching their party to vote for him.... saw it on the news tonight...

jd

there's more Mexicans :laugh2::laugh2:
even Rush wants all the ditto heads to vote for Hillary

Yurt

02-29-2008, 08:03 PM

he shouldn't be worried about the mex's, he's got a whole coalition of Texas Republicans switching their party to vote for him.... saw it on the news tonight...

jd

holy crap batman, its senator mccruin

are you serious?

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 08:05 PM

holy crap batman, its senator mccruin

are you serious?

Just in the primary, yurt----don't freak !! :laugh2:

hjmick

02-29-2008, 08:06 PM

Kinky has ruined Texas. The whole place has gone crazy. I blame Kinky.

LOL

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 08:09 PM

Kinky has ruined Texas. The whole place has gone crazy. I blame Kinky.

LOL

He's pretty funny---always liked him when he played with the Jewboys.

hjmick

02-29-2008, 08:10 PM

He's pretty funny---always liked him when he played with the Jewboys.

I hear he is a decent author as well.

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 08:13 PM

I hear he is a decent author as well.

ya----being a "cowboy" jew is a pretty good gimmick. :laugh2:

JohnDoe

02-29-2008, 08:16 PM

holy crap batman, its senator mccruin

are you serious?

yes, I am, they even interviewed one of the guys leading the heard....says they have over 700 repubs just in his area that have changed parties to vote for obama in the primaries....

no commitment on the actual election though....whther he'd still support obama...

they don't want Hillary as the Dem option going against McCain, is what it appears like...

and leave it to Texas, and a few other states, that's not cheating!!!

Isn't it awesome! :clap:

jd

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 08:18 PM

Yurt

02-29-2008, 08:19 PM

yes, I am, they even interviewed one of the guys leading the heard....says they have over 700 repubs just in his area that have changed parties to vote for obama in the primaries....

no commitment on the actual election though....whther he'd still support obama...

they don't want Hillary as the Dem option going against McCain, is what it appears like...

and leave it to Texas, and a few other states, that's not cheating!!!

Isn't it awesome! :clap:

jd

no, its disturbing. obama will leave our country open to terrorists. mark my word. he can't even tell the difference between rejections and denunciation (purported harvard law grad) and he and his most ardent follows, like MFM, think AQ is not in Iraq. Only he, because apparently he is a harvard law grad, did an about face the next day and said -- yes, AQ is in iraq, though his most ardent supporter, MFM, still insists they aren't there.

think about it. you know hillary and him are about dead even on platforms, except she will save america militarily, he won't.

JohnDoe

02-29-2008, 08:24 PM

no, its disturbing. obama will leave our country open to terrorists. mark my word. he can't even tell the difference between rejections and denunciation (purported harvard law grad) and he and his most ardent follows, like MFM, think AQ is not in Iraq. Only he, because apparently he is a harvard law grad, did an about face the next day and said -- yes, AQ is in iraq, though his most ardent supporter, MFM, still insists they aren't there.

think about it. you know hillary and him are about dead even on platforms, except she will save america militarily, he won't.

p.s. I am not an Obama follower. I was just kidding about the isn't it awesome! i should have typed NOT, afterwards to make it clear... :)

I was mocking these open elections where the other side of the aisle can affect your own party's primary choice by switching parties for primary then switching back for the actual election and voting with their original party.

jd

Yurt

02-29-2008, 08:29 PM

p.s. I am not an Obama follower. I was just kidding about the isn't it awesome! i should have typed NOT, afterwards to make it clear... :)

I was mocking these open elections where the other side of the aisle can affect your own party's primary choice by switching parties for primary then switching back for the actual election and voting with their original party.

jd

actually, i think they are closed elections, because you have to switch parties:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=10706&highlight=open+primaries

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 08:33 PM

actually, i think they are closed elections, because you have to switch parties:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=10706&highlight=open+primaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Democratic_primary,_2008

here--read all about it---primaries AND caucuses

JohnDoe

02-29-2008, 08:37 PM

actually, i think they are closed elections, because you have to switch parties:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=10706&highlight=open+primaries
oh, well i worded it wrong i guess, but i don't think it is honest, to switch for the primary, to affect the outcome of the election in the manner of "who their party's opponent will be"...I think Dems should have the say in who they pick and repubs have the say in who they pick, and one shhould not switch parties just to screw up your opponents, and vote in their primary.

I don't mind if Independents decide which way to vote, or either of the party people that want to switch sides because they honestly want to support someone from the other party....

but to get masses to switch parties just so they can affect the outcome of the other party's candidate choice is cheating...

but nothing can be done about it I guess...and those that do it are just scummy as far as I am concerned no matter what side of the aisle that does it...

jd

retiredman

02-29-2008, 08:59 PM

Not as great as would be without a B. Hussein mandate. :finger3:

And not as great as if we spent every dime single dime in the treasury on weapons systems development....but, still MORE than enough to WIDEN - NOT CLOSE as you inaccurately stated - the technology gap between us and our potential enemies. Our troops will be safer tomorrow than they are today.... which will potentially SAVE more lives tomorrow than are saved today.

You clearly - and erroneously - stated otherwise and have been running like a girlieman from your own words ever since!:lol:

AFbombloader

02-29-2008, 09:12 PM

why would you think that Obama would not develop those systems?

my analogy is accurate. If we have a relative technological advantage today, and if we develop new weapons systems at a rate, that while reduced slightly from its previous rate, still is faster than our potential enemies, our relative advantage will increase, and not decrease.

sports cars, even in second gear, go faster than rickshaws. fact.

What if the rate is not "slightly reduced"? He never said he would slightly reduce, he said he would slow.
To use your analogy, a race car idling in first gear would get beat by a rickshaw right?
There is no way to know what he wants when he said slow, I fear it would be more my analogy than yours. Slow to the point of stopping......

AF:salute:

retiredman

02-29-2008, 09:17 PM

What if the rate is not "slightly reduced"? He never said he would slightly reduce, he said he would slow.
To use your analogy, a race car idling in first gear would get beat by a rickshaw right?
There is no way to know what he wants when he said slow, I fear it would be more my analogy than yours. Slow to the point of stopping......

AF:salute:

you are welcome to be fearful of an Obama presidency. I am not. I think it is idiotic to assume that any president would so reduce our development of weapons technology that he would sacrifice our technological advantage... but do go ahead and keep suggesting that he would.... the more desparate the republican opposition gets, the more the people will smell your fear! :laugh2:

Dilloduck

02-29-2008, 09:49 PM

you are welcome to be fearful of an Obama presidency. I am not. I think it is idiotic to assume that any president would so reduce our development of weapons technology that he would sacrifice our technological advantage... but do go ahead and keep suggesting that he would.... the more desparate the republican opposition gets, the more the people will smell your fear! :laugh2:

Hell---I'll go as far as to say that it is idiotic to think that any of these candidates can make enough difference in my life for me to even notice. We may as well have a fish for a president.

Yurt

02-29-2008, 09:53 PM

And not as great as if we spent every dime single dime in the treasury on weapons systems development....but, still MORE than enough to WIDEN - NOT CLOSE as you inaccurately stated - the technology gap between us and our potential enemies. Our troops will be safer tomorrow than they are today.... which will potentially SAVE more lives tomorrow than are saved today.

You clearly - and erroneously - stated otherwise and have been running like a girlieman from your own words ever since!:lol:

you're the last man on the board that deserves to use this....

do you reject or denounce my post? you don't even understand what words mean..... :laugh2:

retiredman

02-29-2008, 10:18 PM

you're the last man on the board that deserves to use this....

do you reject or denounce my post? you don't even understand what words mean..... :laugh2:

I do neither. If you had said something that I found overtly offensive, I would denounce it. If you had offered me anything of substance, I would reject it.

To denounce someONE is to to condemn or censure them openly or publicly
(like Obama has denounced Reverend Farrakhan)

to reject someTHING is to refuse to have, take, recognize it.
(since Farrakhan did not offer anything there was nothing for Obama to refuse to have, or take or recognize)

you adolescent whining about this tempest in a teapot makes me wonder if YOU understant what those words mean. :poke:

Dilloduck

03-01-2008, 08:08 AM

retiredman

03-01-2008, 11:59 AM

Farrakhan offered his endorsement.

a simple link to the text of Reverend Farrakhan's remarks would prove your heretofore unproven assertion.

I'll wait.

Dilloduck

03-01-2008, 12:30 PM

a simple link to the text of Reverend Farrakhan's remarks would prove your heretofore unproven assertion.

I'll wait.

Enough of the semantic word games---if you don't think Farrakhan was trying to offer Obama anything you probably miss out on a lot of pussy too.

retiredman

03-01-2008, 12:40 PM

Enough of the semantic word games---if you don't think Farrakhan was trying to offer Obama anything you probably miss out on a lot of pussy too.

OH....so you DON'T have any link... why didn't you just say so?

and you want to say that everytime a minister compliments a politician, that is synonymous with an endorsement and means that the minister is offering his or her assistance in getting elected and not merely expressing their opinion?

Oh...and I am a happily married 57 year old guy with a 40 year old wife... I get as much as I want.:laugh2:

Dilloduck

03-01-2008, 01:04 PM

OH....so you DON'T have any link... why didn't you just say so?

and you want to say that everytime a minister compliments a politician, that is synonymous with an endorsement and means that the minister is offering his or her assistance in getting elected and not merely expressing their opinion?

Oh...and I am a happily married 57 year old guy with a 40 year old wife... I get as much as I want.:laugh2:

As he battles for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama is trying to strengthen his support among Jewish voters and in doing so, is navigating one of the more treacherous paths of Democratic politics.

The challenge of meeting the concerns of the Jewish electorate, a cornerstone of the Democratic base, was evident Tuesday when Mr. Obama was asked at the Democratic debate in Cleveland about Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who has endorsed him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01obama.html?hp

there goes the NYT---lying again !!!:laugh2:

retiredman

03-01-2008, 01:09 PM

As he battles for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama is trying to strengthen his support among Jewish voters and in doing so, is navigating one of the more treacherous paths of Democratic politics.

The challenge of meeting the concerns of the Jewish electorate, a cornerstone of the Democratic base, was evident Tuesday when Mr. Obama was asked at the Democratic debate in Cleveland about Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who has endorsed him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01obama.html?hp

there goes the NYT---lying again !!!:laugh2:

pretty funny...you can't find anything and have to rely on the NYT, who folks like you regularly villify. Whatever!:laugh2:

Dilloduck

03-01-2008, 01:36 PM

pretty funny...you can't find anything and have to rely on the NYT, who folks like you regularly villify. Whatever!:laugh2:

Just one of hundreds of links ----Are you prepared to claim that the NYT has reported inaccurately again ?

Yurt

03-01-2008, 02:04 PM

I do neither. If you had said something that I found overtly offensive, I would denounce it. If you had offered me anything of substance, I would reject it.

To denounce someONE is to to condemn or censure them openly or publicly
(like Obama has denounced Reverend Farrakhan)

to reject someTHING is to refuse to have, take, recognize it.
(since Farrakhan did not offer anything there was nothing for Obama to refuse to have, or take or recognize)

you adolescent whining about this tempest in a teapot makes me wonder if YOU understant what those words mean. :poke:

obama said:

i both reject and renounce....:poke:

take it up with him why he FIRST rejected him. its like you have no clue.

and it is very important, for it is you that makes a big deal over HIS words. you constantly harp on me to "use" HIS words. i have repeatedly showed you that he doesn't know the meaning of words, hence, how can you be sure he knows the meaning of a word when the "word" suits you? you're the one that is making this a big deal. all you have to do is admit he doesn't know the words, and that slow = curtail and retard when he talked about the military. it is your utter arrogance that has caused this tempest in a teapot as you call it.

retiredman

03-01-2008, 02:12 PM

obama said:

i both reject and renounce....:poke:

take it up with him why he FIRST rejected him. its like you have no clue.

and it is very important, for it is you that makes a big deal over HIS words. you constantly harp on me to "use" HIS words. i have repeatedly showed you that he doesn't know the meaning of words, hence, how can you be sure he knows the meaning of a word when the "word" suits you? you're the one that is making this a big deal. all you have to do is admit he doesn't know the words, and that slow = curtail and retard when he talked about the military. it is your utter arrogance that has caused this tempest in a teapot as you call it.

I both renounce and reject your version of the origin of this tempest.

retiredman

03-01-2008, 02:13 PM

Just one of hundreds of links ----Are you prepared to claim that the NYT has reported inaccurately again ?

if you got hundreds of links...why not just get the one that has the transcript of Farrakhan's remarks?:lol:

Yurt

03-01-2008, 02:14 PM

I both renounce and reject your version of the origin of this tempest.

i figured you'd have nothing of substance to offer

you have yet to address his lack of knowledge concerning rejection v denouncing. he got it wrong and you know it that is why you offer the above silly comment.

retiredman

03-01-2008, 02:24 PM

i figured you'd have nothing of substance to offer

you have yet to address his lack of knowledge concerning rejection v denouncing. he got it wrong and you know it that is why you offer the above silly comment.

"nothing of substance"??? How can any further discussion about this minuscule little mote of dialog be substantial?:lol:

I think he had denounced Farrakhan and that was all he felt he needed to do.... Russert and Hillary seemed to be making a big deal out of this concept of "rejecting" so, he diffused the situation by saying if they thought the terms were similar that he would do both....and then tried to move on in a debate that had seen the first 16 minutes consumed by one topic. YOu can characterize Obama as not having knowledge of words, but, I would suggest that maybe you would be in a better position to criticize his use of language after you had your second book on the best seller lists and had developed a nation reputation as an brilliant orator...

But do..continue to focus your narrow obsessive little mind on reject and denounce and make sure you can thoroughly dissect every important nuance there. I, for one, think it is a silly argument.:laugh2:

Yurt

03-01-2008, 02:35 PM

retiredman

03-01-2008, 02:41 PM

of course you do, it makes your leader look stupid and you naturally think its "silly"

you are blind follower, no worries, i won't debate with you anymore because aparently you can't handle it and have accused me of stalking you.

i guess i thought we were having a good debate on debate policy. too much for you and it raddled your wee brain.

:fu:

hey...I would love to debate policy on debate policy....

debating the meanings of the words denounce and reject and whether Obama used them correctly is minutia.

Similarly, I would not be all that cordial if you wanted to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin!

Really! You have abdicated your right to EVER accuse ANYONE of lacking substance in their posts!:laugh2:

Dilloduck

03-01-2008, 09:07 PM

if you got hundreds of links...why not just get the one that has the transcript of Farrakhan's remarks?:lol:

Can't answer my question, huh?

Are you prepared to claim that the NYT has reported inaccurately again ?

retiredman

03-01-2008, 09:12 PM

Can't answer my question, huh?

Are you prepared to claim that the NYT has reported inaccurately again ?

If the NYT characterized Farrakhan's complimentary statements as an endorsement, I think they were inaccurate in doing so.

But again..with your hundreds of links, one would think you could easily pull up the transcript of Farrakhan's remarks and prove ME wrong and the NYT right.

I'll wait.

Dilloduck

03-01-2008, 09:22 PM

If the NYT characterized Farrakhan's complimentary statements as an endorsement, I think they were inaccurate in doing so.

But again..with your hundreds of links, one would think you could easily pull up the transcript of Farrakhan's remarks and prove ME wrong and the NYT right.

I'll wait.

What do you mean
If the NYT characterized Farrakhan's complimentary statements as an endorsement ? Didn't you read the link ? Your sophistry is :lame2:.

retiredman

03-01-2008, 09:29 PM

What do you mean ? Didn't you read the link ? Your sophistry is :lame2:.

I think they are inaccurate...

speaking of LAME, how are you coming on digging out Farrakhan's transcript from you hundreds of links? :laugh2:

Dilloduck

03-01-2008, 09:39 PM

I think they are inaccurate...

speaking of LAME, how are you coming on digging out Farrakhan's transcript from you hundreds of links? :laugh2:

not worth the time---it's like debating TM all over again. :laugh2:

Yurt

03-01-2008, 10:23 PM

hey...I would love to debate policy on debate policy....

debating the meanings of the words denounce and reject and whether Obama used them correctly is minutia.

Similarly, I would not be all that cordial if you wanted to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin!

Really! You have abdicated your right to EVER accuse ANYONE of lacking substance in their posts!:laugh2:

coming from one who doesn't even realize that i posted the definition of the word twice, thinks the fact that a presidential candidate (whom you once said was smart because he went to harvard law) doesn't know the meaning of words and then you get pissy on me when i call him on the meaning but then you say that i must take him for the words he uses..... and then insults me....

yep, sounds like substance to me......:fu:

if you can't hang with intellectual debates, then get out of the debate arena. maybe you should take some time off and let your brain heal from the mental pummelling you've taken here this past week.

glockmail

03-03-2008, 09:15 AM

And not as great as if we spent every dime single dime in the treasury on weapons systems development....but, still MORE than enough to WIDEN - NOT CLOSE as you inaccurately stated - the technology gap between us and our potential enemies. Our troops will be safer tomorrow than they are today.... which will potentially SAVE more lives tomorrow than are saved today.

You clearly - and erroneously - stated otherwise and have been running like a girlieman from your own words ever since!:lol: Look who's calling me a girlieman- a liberal. :lol:

Slowing the pace of military technology will cost US military lives. Are you still denying that? You and B. Hussein must want our guys to die.

retiredman

03-03-2008, 10:02 AM

Slowing the pace of military technology will cost US military lives. Are you still denying that? You and B. Hussein must want our guys to die.

that is not fact... that is your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

As long as our technological advantage increases over our adversaries, our troops will be safer tomorrow than they are today. Why do YOU deny THAT?

And one thing that President Obama will NOT do is start silly wars of choice that unnecessarily cause four thousand of our guys to die.

When President Obama does send our men into battle, it will be against those islamic extremists who sought and seek to do us harm.

glockmail

03-03-2008, 11:15 AM

[1]that is not fact... that is your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

[2]As long as our technological advantage increases over our adversaries, our troops will be safer tomorrow than they are today. Why do YOU deny THAT?

[3]And one thing that President Obama will NOT do is start silly wars of choice that unnecessarily cause four thousand of our guys to die.

[4]When President Obama does send our men into battle, it will be against those islamic extremists who sought and seek to do us harm.

1. It is an opinion based on logic that cannot be denied.
2. I don’t deny that. What I am saying that if the technological advantage is increased less (under a B. Hussein presidency) than it would be (under a McCain presidency), that our troops would be safer still. Why do you deny that?
3. You appear to think that the WOT is “silly”. Most Americans disagree.
4. That is completely your opinion and without basis in fact.

retiredman

03-03-2008, 11:26 AM

1. It is an opinion based on logic that cannot be denied.
2. I don’t deny that. What I am saying that if the technological advantage is increased less (under a B. Hussein presidency) than it would be (under a McCain presidency), that our troops would be safer still. Why do you deny that?
3. You appear to think that the WOT is “silly”. Most Americans disagree.
4. That is completely your opinion and without basis in fact.

1. silly logic. the level of technology is much less a factor in the unnecessary deaths of our troops than sending them into battles that are counterproductive to our objectives.
2. Again... we could spend every dime we had on military technology... and, it might make our soldiers incrementally even "safer" than McCain's plan. Does the fact that we could spend MORE than McCain would propose mean that HE wants our guys to die?
3. The WOT is not silly at all. Most Americans now agree with me that the war in Iraq is counterproductive to the war against islamic extremism.
4. It is an opinion based upon logic that cannot be denied.

glockmail

03-03-2008, 12:00 PM

4. It is an opinion based upon logic that cannot be denied. Now you're just being an idiot.

retiredman

03-03-2008, 12:23 PM

Now you're just being an idiot.

he has said as much. I think that it is you who is being idiotic and willfully blind.
Oh...and I asked a question concerning John McCain wanting our boys to die....did you miss it?

glockmail

03-03-2008, 12:58 PM

I didn't miss your observation that builds on the assumption that I made yet you can not admit is correct.

retiredman

03-03-2008, 01:01 PM

I didn't miss your observation that builds on the assumption that I made yet you can not admit is correct.

If your assumption is correct, then you must also assume that John McCain wants our guys to die.

Is that correct?

You see...I happen to disagree with you assumption, but since you made it, you should also be willing to admit what it actually entails.

glockmail

03-03-2008, 03:51 PM

If your assumption is correct, then you must also assume that John McCain wants our guys to die.

Is that correct?

You see...I happen to disagree with you assumption, but since you made it, you should also be willing to admit what it actually entails. You can ask McCain yourself if he wants soldiers to die, but I think he intends to fund the military to the level asked for by the Pentagon. They probably have the best opinion on how much is needed and I'm fairly certain that they don't want soldiers to die needlessly.

You should ask your messiah, B. hussein, if he knows better than the Pentagon.

retiredman

03-03-2008, 05:03 PM

You can ask McCain yourself if he wants soldiers to die, but I think he intends to fund the military to the level asked for by the Pentagon. They probably have the best opinion on how much is needed and I'm fairly certain that they don't want soldiers to die needlessly.

You should ask your messiah, B. hussein, if he knows better than the Pentagon.

you think??? you think? who cares?

It's clear...we COULD spend more money than even McCain would spend.... does that mean he wants our boys to die? yes or no. You made an assumption. Stand by it.

And as someone who DID serve, I can tell you that the armed services ALWAYS ask for more than they know they will get. ALWAYS. And they are forever infighting with one another.... is this guided missile frigate program more important than this new stealth bomber program and so forth. If John McCain simply rubber stamped the Pentagon budget request, he would be showing an abdication of leadership.

glockmail

03-03-2008, 05:08 PM

you think??? you think? who cares?

It's clear...we COULD spend more money than even McCain would spend.... does that mean he wants our boys to die? yes or no. You made an assumption. Stand by it.

And as someone who DID serve, I can tell you that the armed services ALWAYS ask for more than they know they will get. ALWAYS. And they are forever infighting with one another.... is this guided missile frigate program more important than this new stealth bomber program and so forth. If John McCain simply rubber stamped the Pentagon budget request, he would be showing an abdication of leadership. It appears that you are now agreeing with my position that reducing the rate of technological advancement will cause more US military deaths.

retiredman

03-03-2008, 09:13 PM

It appears that you are now agreeing with my position that reducing the rate of technological advancement will cause more US military deaths.
no. I am not. That is YOUR assumption.

But it certainly appears as if you do not have the strength of your own convictions.... it becomes a bit harder for you to assert that a republican wants our boys to die than it does when saying it about a democrat, it would appear.

I am saying that Obama would never allow our enemies to close the technology gap (as you have PREVIOUSLY misstated and been schooled on) but will always ensure that our technology edge will persist and increase which will make our troops safer tomorrow than they are today.

So... does John McCain want our boys to die or not????:laugh2:

Yurt

03-03-2008, 10:29 PM

no. I am not. That is YOUR assumption.

But it certainly appears as if you do not have the strength of your own convictions.... it becomes a bit harder for you to assert that a republican wants our boys to die than it does when saying it about a democrat, it would appear.

I am saying that Obama would never allow our enemies to close the technology gap (as you have PREVIOUSLY misstated and been schooled on) but will always ensure that our technology edge will persist and increase which will make our troops safer tomorrow than they are today.

So... does John McCain want our boys to die or not????:laugh2:

pure speculation that has no basis in fact. when you listen to his speech in the OP, it is clear that his goal is greatly reducing our military strength in the world. any opinion as to the opposite is not said in the video and is pure hyperbole.

retiredman

03-03-2008, 10:34 PM

pure speculation that has no basis in fact. when you listen to his speech in the OP, it is clear that his goal is greatly reducing our military strength in the world. any opinion as to the opposite is not said in the video and is pure hyperbole.

suggesting that he states, as a goal "greatly reducing our military strength in the world" is pure editorial opinionated bullshit... from the master of the genre!

Yurt

03-03-2008, 11:01 PM

suggesting that he states, as a goal "greatly reducing our military strength in the world" is pure editorial opinionated bullshit... from the master of the genre!

i thought if i wrote that way you would understand and like my posts better o'wonderous light of hyperbole

glad to you know i was right about your speculation...

retiredman

03-03-2008, 11:06 PM

i thought if i wrote that way you would understand and like my posts better o'wonderous light of hyperbole

glad to you know i was right about your speculation...

I don't think you were.

and what ever gave you the idea that I didn't like your posts? I really do, in fact... most of the time, anyway.

glockmail

03-04-2008, 04:58 AM

....John McCain want our boys to die or not????:laugh2: No, but apparently you and B. Hussein do.

retiredman

03-04-2008, 07:21 AM

No, but apparently you and B. Hussein do.

unable to stand by the extension of your own assumption, I see?

Why am I not surprised?:coffee:

glockmail

03-05-2008, 06:59 AM

Argumentum ad nauseam (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam)

retiredman

03-05-2008, 07:07 AM

Argumentum ad nauseam (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam)

I agree that is your tactic.... and watching you argue while backing away from your own assumptions is quite amusing.

Dilloduck

03-05-2008, 07:24 AM

Sort of a moot point since Obama has started his downhill slide.

glockmail

03-05-2008, 08:15 AM

I agree that is your tactic.... and watching you argue while backing away from your own assumptions is quite amusing. This is up there with "I know you are what am I?". It shows your lack of maturity as well as lack of intellectual honesty.

glockmail

03-05-2008, 08:16 AM

Sort of a moot point since Obama has started his downhill slide. The queen vampire is not dead yet?

Dilloduck

03-05-2008, 08:17 AM

The queen vampire is not dead yet?

Not hardly---I can hear the ghost of OCA saying "I TOLD YOU SO".

retiredman

03-05-2008, 10:19 AM

This is up there with "I know you are what am I?". It shows your lack of maturity as well as lack of intellectual honesty.

if you believe your own assumption, then you must agree that John McCain wants our boys to die. That's fact.

Obama does NOT want to allow our enemies to close the weapons technology gap, and considering the fact that DoD's R&D budget dwarf's anyone else's, it will continue to widen regardless of his slowing down of some programs. So...in fact... our boys will have a greater technological advantage over their enemies tomorrow than they do today. They will be safer tomorrow because of it. Fewer of them will die because of it.

But you want to cast that as "Obama wants our boys to die". Well...since McCain could clearly spend more, and will undoubtedly spend less than the sum total of requests from service heads, that means, according to YOUR assumption (which I do not share) that McCain wants our boys to die as well. Either admit that or revise your assumption. Those are the adult choices....
or you could continue to sputter and spin and obfuscate....

I am gonna bet on the latter.:laugh2:

Yurt

03-05-2008, 11:05 AM

if you believe your own assumption, then you must agree that John McCain wants our boys to die. That's fact.

Obama does NOT want to allow our enemies to close the weapons technology gap, and considering the fact that DoD's R&D budget dwarf's anyone else's, it will continue to widen regardless of his slowing down of some programs. So...in fact... our boys will have a greater technological advantage over their enemies tomorrow than they do today. They will be safer tomorrow because of it. Fewer of them will die because of it.

But you want to cast that as "Obama wants our boys to die". Well...since McCain could clearly spend more, and will undoubtedly spend less than the sum total of requests from service heads, that means, according to YOUR assumption (which I do not share) that McCain wants our boys to die as well. Either admit that or revise your assumption. Those are the adult choices....
or you could continue to sputter and spin and obfuscate....

I am gonna bet on the latter.:laugh2:

:link:

retiredman

03-05-2008, 11:20 AM

:link:

common sense.

why would anyone want to lose the advantage to their enemy? get real

As stated, our DoD R&D budget dwarfs the GDP of most nations on earth...we can reduce that budget and still be spending twice as much as our closest rival

Yurt

03-05-2008, 11:36 AM

common sense.

why would anyone want to lose the advantage to their enemy? get real

As stated, our DoD R&D budget dwarfs the GDP of most nations on earth...we can reduce that budget and still be spending twice as much as our closest rival

it is not common sense, it is speculation and biased at that. you do not know his motives. we do know for a fact that his plan is to decrease US military strength. that is a fact.

you are once again using opinions as fact, just like in the native land thread. i present you with facts and all you do is bring opinion that you wield like facts to make your case.

so, for the record: you have no factual support to back up your claim.

:)

retiredman

03-05-2008, 01:22 PM

it is not common sense, it is speculation and biased at that. you do not know his motives. we do know for a fact that his plan is to decrease US military strength. that is a fact.

you are once again using opinions as fact, just like in the native land thread. i present you with facts and all you do is bring opinion that you wield like facts to make your case.

so, for the record: you have no factual support to back up your claim.

:)

of course it is common sense...unless you ascribe to some bizarre manchurian candidate scenario. anyone who wants to be president of the united states in this day and age would not want to decrease our technological edge in warfighting over our adversaries. to suggest otherwise is silly.

And it is NOT a fact that he wants to decrease US military strength.... he only wants to slow the increase of US military strength. Is that too tough a concept for you to grasp?

Yurt

03-05-2008, 03:40 PM

manfrommaine;212255]of course it is common sense...unless you ascribe to some bizarre manchurian candidate scenario. anyone who wants to be president of the united states in this day and age would not want to decrease our technological edge in warfighting over our adversaries. to suggest otherwise is silly.

And it is NOT a fact that he wants to decrease US military strength.... he only wants to slow the increase of US military strength. Is that too tough a concept for you to grasp

It is not common sense, it is purely your biased opinion. Its painfully obvious as you cannot cite to anything he has ever said that supports your opinion, instead you rely on conjecture and hyperbole.

The facts remain clear:

he will cut the anti missile defense program (his words "unproven missile defense systems)

he will "not weaponize space"

"I will slow our development of future combat systems"

This is clearly a candidate that will decrease our military strength.

retiredman

03-05-2008, 04:05 PM

It is not common sense, it is purely your biased opinion. Its painfully obvious as you cannot cite to anything he has ever said that supports your opinion, instead you rely on conjecture and hyperbole.

The facts remain clear:

he will cut the anti missile defense program (his words "unproven missile defense systems)

he will "not weaponize space"

"I will slow our development of future combat systems"

This is clearly a candidate that will decrease our military strength.

that is clearly not the case and is only your opinion - arrived at through faulty logic. Nothing he has said would decrease our military strength in any way...it would only slow the rate of increase in our strength.

WRL

03-06-2008, 06:38 AM

that is clearly not the case and is only your opinion - arrived at through faulty logic. Nothing he has said would decrease our military strength in any way...it would only slow the rate of increase in our strength.

Faulty logic, is he so prophetic his words don't even mean what they say?

Obama in 08, because no matter what he says, it's actually in line with what you think.

retiredman

03-06-2008, 06:48 AM

Faulty logic, is he so prophetic his words don't even mean what they say?

his words mean exactly what they say....reducing the rate of technological weapons systems development is not synonymous with decreasing our military strength. If we still spend MORE than any of our potential enemies, we will continue to increase our military strength and increase our technology lead.

WRL

03-06-2008, 08:20 AM

Dilloduck

03-06-2008, 08:24 AM

WRL

03-06-2008, 08:37 AM

Since he won't be the Democratic nominee I don't care where he stands on any of the issues.

They're both particularly weak on the Key issues.

Dilloduck

03-06-2008, 08:46 AM

They're both particularly weak on the Key issues.

Issues are insignificant as far as how people vote, imho. They vote with much more mundane motivations like race, looks, personal likes and dislikes, and party affiliation.

WRL

03-06-2008, 09:20 AM

Issues are insignificant as far as how people vote, imho. They vote with much more mundane motivations like race, looks, personal likes and dislikes, and party affiliation.

To some extent you're correct, that why we should strive to inform those people to make more educated votes.

Dilloduck

03-06-2008, 09:33 AM

To some extent you're correct, that why we should strive to inform those people to make more educated votes.

Even to most educated of all are still prone to vote for someone soley because of their race, gender, age, looks or where they live.

Yurt

03-06-2008, 10:31 AM

his words mean exactly what they say....reducing the rate of technological weapons systems development is not synonymous with decreasing our military strength. If we still spend MORE than any of our potential enemies, we will continue to increase our military strength and increase our technology lead.

you are putting words/theories into obamas mouth. see that is your biggest weakness in defending him is that when presented with facts you use a novel theory called "common sense" to say what he would actually do. that doesn't fly when he expressly says the opposite, especially when it would be so easy for him to have expressly said what you wish he had said.

retiredman

03-06-2008, 11:31 AM

you are putting words/theories into obamas mouth. see that is your biggest weakness in defending him is that when presented with facts you use a novel theory called "common sense" to say what he would actually do. that doesn't fly when he expressly says the opposite, especially when it would be so easy for him to have expressly said what you wish he had said.

he did NOT expressly say the opposite. He said he would "slow" spending on military technology. If one considers that the DoD budget for R&D alone is twice as much as any of our potential enemies' entire defense budgets, it is not too difficult to comprehend that "slowing" (as opposed to "stopping" or "drastically reducing" or "slashing" or "eliminating") would still allow us to continue to outpace the rest of the world in weapons technology development.

And I think it is quite illustrative that "common sense" is a novel theory to you.

JohnDoe

03-06-2008, 12:16 PM

U.S. Military Spending vs. The World

U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.

These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, however the U.S.’s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Yurt

03-06-2008, 03:53 PM

he did NOT expressly say the opposite. He said he would "slow" spending on military technology. If one considers that the DoD budget for R&D alone is twice as much as any of our potential enemies' entire defense budgets, it is not too difficult to comprehend that "slowing" (as opposed to "stopping" or "drastically reducing" or "slashing" or "eliminating") would still allow us to continue to outpace the rest of the world in weapons technology development.

And I think it is quite illustrative that "common sense" is a novel theory to you.

only your "common" sense :laugh2:

retiredman

03-06-2008, 08:49 PM

only your "common" sense :laugh2:

is that all you have to say? ;)

glockmail

03-09-2008, 07:46 PM

retiredman

03-09-2008, 08:03 PM

maine, he clearly says he will slow the development of future combat systems. Combat systems save soldiers lives, like say the Predator Drone, that was recently fitted with hellfire missiles, it can surveil an enemy and take it out without harming a single US soldier. Putting the brakes on these types of programs put US soldiers in harms way unnecessarily.

do even more combat systems than, say, McCain would support, therefore save even MORE soldier's lives? What about even more than that? Or even MORE that that? Does that mean that, if we COULD possibly spend even more on combat systems, that spending anything less than the theoretical maximum is synonymous with wanting to see our troops die?

If we increase our weapons technology gap, our soldiers will be safer tomorrow than they are today. Again...our DoD R&D budget is more than double any of our potential enemies. that is fact.

WRL

03-09-2008, 11:13 PM

http://www.concordcoalition.org/images/charts/FY06-spending-income-chart.jpg

As you can clearly see only around 20% of what we spend is going towards defense, trying to close the deficit gap there is not only foolish but could have deadly consequences.

Yurt

03-09-2008, 11:34 PM

anyhoo, bambam is bad for this country. weaken our military, pray to the motherland....and ..........................

MFM supports him.............nuff said :laugh2:

retiredman

03-10-2008, 09:42 AM

As you can clearly see only around 20% of what we spend is going towards defense, trying to close the deficit gap there is not only foolish but could have deadly consequences.

what percent of our available outlays are spent on defense is irrelevant to the FACT that our R&D outlays are more than twice those of any of our enemies. Obama never said he would use DoD R&D to close the deficit gap, he merely said he would slow down the growth of it.

Again.... since it is clearly possible to spend even MORE than even the Pentagon wants to spend and, according to your simplistic. linear wisdom, such increased spending would decrease those "deadly consequences", are you willing to state that spending anything less than every dime available in the federal budget for defense could have "deadly consequences" and that even John McCain, therefore, wants to see our boys die?