Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorgra]

• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [Yesterday at 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [Yesterday at 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [Yesterday at 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]
• ????????? ??????????? seo... by Victorumj
  [April 25, 2024, 09:59:00 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? tk by Victorcqt
  [April 25, 2024, 06:35:49 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129551
• Total Topics: 7148
• Online Today: 179
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Arnox]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040603242.html

Do you approve of this? I REALLY do not but that's just me.

Discuss.

[xolik]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear

lol

[12AX7]

  More stupid. It reads like the 'gun control' debate on a large scale. The danger isn't the US, Britain, China, etc. having thousands of nukes; the danger is Al Queda or some other similar group getting one. They'd be certain to use it; and on civilians. I hardly think us reducing our stockpile or saying out loud when/how we would/wouldnt use nukes is going to have any effect on said group and their intentions.
  End result - validating their opinion that the US is weak and should be destroyed.
  
  I'm just glad I don't live near a heavily populated area, or an important one.

 

[12AX7]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear

lol

 That too. Anyone who believes real reductions will take place anywhere but here is a fool; straight up.

[xolik]

The danger isn't the US

I'm sure there are TONS of Obama supporters that would disagree with you on this.

[Clear_Runway]

what difference does it make? the u.s. has enough nukes to destroy the world six times over already.

[Arnox]

 More stupid. It reads like the 'gun control' debate on a large scale. The danger isn't the US, Britain, China, etc. having thousands of nukes; the danger is Al Queda or some other similar group getting one. They'd be certain to use it; and on civilians. I hardly think us reducing our stockpile or saying out loud when/how we would/wouldnt use nukes is going to have any effect on said group and their intentions.
  End result - validating their opinion that the US is weak and should be destroyed.
  
  I'm just glad I don't live near a heavily populated area, or an important one.

 

This. The cat's already been let out of the bag (nuclear weapons) and there's nothing we can do about it. And trying to get rid of our defense while hopefully pretending the WMD's will suddenly stop existing is NOT the answer at all. No wonder other countries are laughing at us. I'd laugh too. I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions. Wait a second, why did we vote him into office then...

[xolik]

This. The cat's already been let out of the bag (nuclear weapons) and there's nothing we can do about it. And trying to get rid of our defense while hopefully pretending the WMD's will suddenly stop existing is NOT the answer at all. No wonder other countries are laughing at us. I'd laugh too. I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions. Wait a second, why did we vote him into office then...

hopeandchange. Nobody can do propaganda like the Democrats.

Plus

I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions.

There were plenty who felt this way about W.

[Arnox]

hopeandchange. Nobody can do propaganda like the Democrats

Yes but what are we supposed to take into consideration when we are voting? The party who has the better propaganda or what the candidates actually plan on doing once they get into office?

Propaganda. That's a horrible excuse for us to have voted him in.

[xolik]

Semi-serious answer on contributing factors for why Obama was elected in no particular order.

• People plain fed up with Bush and voted Democrat to register this displeasure
• Shallow young people who vote Democrat because they're easily influenced by what's popular and celebrities say he's totally cool, brah
• Large turn out of black voters and if I need to explain the extra incentive for this...
• "Well, I wanted to back Hillary, but I didn't want my friends thinking I'm a racist, so...
• McCain ran a terrible campaign
• If John McCain got elected and something happened, we'd have President Palin
• Enough people actually like his political ideas and wanted them enacted.
• McCain was seen by many as not conservative enough and a bit of the Republican base sat it out or voted third party

Mix them all together and you wind up having somebody with almost zero practical experience elected to the highest office of the land.

[MadOne]

Once the world has made a weapon you can't stop them from using them. First the arrow and so on. Then next thing that we need to do is create a defense for them that will prevent us from you know being killed in a nuclear holocaust. I think that the THAAD has some potential.

No one will take apart a nuke in there right mind when they are the fastest way to be recognized as a nation

[Wunderkind]

... The party who has the better propaganda or what the candidates actually plan on doing once they get into office?

When you find a candidate who actually plans on doing something other than enjoying their new salary once they get into office... lemme know!   

[xolik]

When you find a candidate who actually plans on doing something other than enjoying their new salary once they get into office... lemme know!   

If it's any help, once I'm President the first thing I'm going to do is run this country into the ground.

[BizB]

Ah! The Obama plan.

[Vespertine]

Ah! The Obama plan.

But be honest, Biz, do you really think McCain would have been so much better?  I mean, health care agenda aside, would McCain really have been so much better than Obama?  McCain certainly wasn't gonna disentangle us from the mid-East.  The economy was in the crapper and (IMHO) whoever inherited it was screwed 19 ways from Sunday.  So what exactly do you think McCain would have done different?  Not bail out the banks/Wall St?  Hell, the banks/Wall St. and the Republicans are so far up each others ass that there was no way there wouldn't have been additional money thrown at them.  So, what?  What would McCain have done different that would have made all of our lives so much better today?

[Demosthenes]

S'truth.  McCain's "economy" plan actually involved about the same bailouts that Obama ended up putting into play, and he certainly didn't have any plans for de-escalating Iraq or Afghanistan.

I don't think McCain would have been any different at all.

[BizB]

Vesp, they're all complicit.  McCain would have piloted the plane into a different farm field, but we'd have crashed either way.

[12AX7]

 Yes, cos it's not just the president anymore. Our entire government is corrupt and incompetent.

[Vespertine]

Vesp, they're all complicit.  McCain would have piloted the plane into a different farm field, but we'd have crashed either way.

This I agree with.  I just get worked up when people specifically point to Obama and blame him.  Too many people (and I don't mean you) point the finger and just refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans would have done essentially the same thing.  Hell, the Republicans did do the same thing...the first bailout package happened before the last election.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Lately I have become over-sensitive with regard to political rhetoric and finger pointing (from both sides).  I'm sick of the nastiness.  I want the landscape to change such that vigorous, healthy debate happens and is encouraged, rather than shouting down the opposing side and calling them names.

[Demosthenes]

I want the landscape to change such that vigorous, healthy debate happens and is encouraged, rather than shouting down the opposing side and calling them names.

That can't happen while the entire system is completely controlled by the two parties.  They made it this way because they want it this way.

No real debate, and no real change can happen until there are more viable options than just Democrat and Republican.

[reimero]

That can't happen while the entire system is completely controlled by the two parties.  They made it this way because they want it this way.

No real debate, and no real change can happen until there are more viable options than just Democrat and Republican.

And the proposed Tea Party doesn't count.  They're just the disgruntled Palin backers.

[12AX7]

That can't happen while the entire system is completely controlled by the two parties.  They made it this way because they want it this way.

No real debate, and no real change can happen until there are more viable options than just Democrat and Republican.

 The thing is; a more ideal option would be -ironically- a paradox; as the party would be so dedicated to curbing Federal Government that
 they would have to vote themselves out of a job.

[12AX7]

For free.

[ivan]

what difference does it make? the u.s. has enough nukes to destroy the world six times over already.

Yes. And this massive, expensive arsenal gives us zero advantage against terrorism, which has been assessed as our greatest threat.

The MAD mentality is difficult to shake loose of, I know. But we can reduce the arsenal substantially and still be in a position to wipe out any nation. And, in turn, be wiped out, because that's how MAD works.

But there's nothing in Obama's policy about reduction of arsenal, other than by attrition. What the Repubs are jumping all over him for is the crux of the new policy: it limits the tactical use of nukes.

The policy states that we can only nuke countries who have nukes, and countries who are developing nukes. So, for instance, we can't nuke Mexico, Sweden, South Africa, Mongolia, Venezuela, or Austria no matter how bad they piss us off, but we can still nuke Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. We can also nuke Iran and any other state that is not in compliance with the NPT.

That is what got everyone's panties in a twist:

"The U.S. has had a long-standing policy, embraced by administrations of both parties, of retaining all options to respond to an attack," Republican Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement. "The NPR released today confuses this long-standing policy."

Total partisan bullcrap. Preserve the right to obliterate a non-nuclear country's civilian population?

And they call themselves Christians.

[Clear_Runway]

doesn't the whole "don't nuke countries who don't have nukes" thing kind of go without saying anyway? we wouldn't have any reason to use them on any other country.