Obama's plan to protect america

[bob4432]

in regards to this video - http://macsmind.com/wordpress/...ts-to-protect-america/

it is the video that i am surprised about, i don't read that site at all, in fact it was the first time i had ever gone there. i actually thought the people i had heard the info from where nutjobs stating that a potential man in power of the U.S. would be so willing to take away our deterrence.

just my opinion, but i found it rather disturbing.

mix that in w/ biden's destruction of the 2nd amendment and we will be, well, i don't need to tell all of you - part is 1:15 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY


Thread locked as it devolved into a flame war between was totally derailed which happens a lot when it's late at night and tempers become short.

Anandtech Senior Moderator

Red Dawn

 

[Robor]

:roll: Sorry, that's all it's worthy of.

 

[bob4432]

?

 

[alchemize]

I think he's very wrong about slowing down our development of future weapons. I don't have any problem with an overall reduction in military spending if it's part of an overall spending reduction program...which I doubt he means. Using defense reduction to fund more social programs is no good tradeoff (nor vice versa).

 

[winnar111]

Why are we slashing military investment even farther below 1960s and 1970s levels?

 

[Robor]

He's talking about getting rid of *all* nukes. If no one has them there's no need for a deterrent. IMO it's a well meaning but incredibly unlikely scenario so either way nothing to worry about. And I'm all for reducing military spending. It's way overboard.

What a bunch of whacko follow up comments.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why are we slashing military investment even farther below 1960s and 1970s levels?

Because SS and Medicare are getting closer to 2040 levels?

 

[bob4432]

like i said, i didn't read the comments, i just watched the video, i try not to stay on sites that are either too left or too right, but the video, to the best of my untrained eye looks un-edited and that is what i found surprising. as far as the military spending, i think it needs to be done but w/out the corruption that i am sure is there w/ frat boy bush and his puppet master in the house now, so hell, maybe take away the corruption from that and we may save a couple billion off the top, as a bonus

hell, this little video is basically a mccain slam add imho, haha.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why are we slashing military investment even farther below 1960s and 1970s levels?

Because the coldwar is over, remember?

Unless, like the Neocons, you want to start it up again...

Obama's right- the whole concept of deterrence is based upon realistic threat evaluation, and no threat remotely as serious as the former soviet union exists today. If the russians are amenable, further strength reductions on both sides are entirely possible, simply because the strength of either is far above that of any conceivable combination of other nations.

Nobody's arguing against a strong military. The real issue is "strong as compared to what?" The boogeyman? Imaginary threats are always bigger than we are - bet on it...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why are we slashing military investment even farther below 1960s and 1970s levels?

Because we're still spending more than the rest of the world combined? And because, like then, we've spent so much on military and a needless foreign war that our nation's economy and infrastructure is falling to shit?

'Military investment" - :roll:

Investment means an expenditure with an expectation of return. The American public gets ZERO return on their 'military investment.'

It's always nice to see the Republicans show their true big government colors. All spend-spend-spend as long as it's all for war-profiteering.

The only real small government proponents anymore are the Libertarians, and unfortunately, they're running Bob Barr. RIP Harry Browne...

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why are we slashing military investment even farther below 1960s and 1970s levels?

Because the coldwar is over, remember?

Unless, like the Neocons, you want to start it up again...

Obama's right- the whole concept of deterrence is based upon realistic threat evaluation, and no threat remotely as serious as the former soviet union exists today. If the russians are amenable, further strength reductions on both sides are entirely possible, simply because the strength of either is far above that of any conceivable combination of other nations.

Nobody's arguing against a strong military. The real issue is "strong as compared to what?" The boogeyman? Imaginary threats are always bigger than we are - bet on it...

i think bushie wants another bang before he goes out...if you are going to be remembered as probably the worst president in history, why not go out w/ a bang, so iran?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bob4432
i think bushie wants another bang before he goes out...if you are going to be remembered as probably the worst president in history, why not go out w/ a bang, so iran?

It's like he's worked hard for that distinction. For example, right now he could declare victory in Iraq and be the President who won the war. Right now. The whole thing could be framed up as a big victory, the boys come home to parades, his party marches triumphantly into November, the works. But he won't. And why not? See your OP. What were you disturbed about? Oh yeah, the fact that the end of war means pounding those swords into plowshares.

And remember your sig, the beauty of the 2nd is that it's not needed until they try to take it. Why get all worked up about it, to the extent of focusing on it while the other amendments get trampled to hell and gone? When they pass the law to ban guns, that's when you and I grab ours and join the revolution. Before that, worry about all our other freedoms that have been eroding.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bob4432
i think bushie wants another bang before he goes out...if you are going to be remembered as probably the worst president in history, why not go out w/ a bang, so iran?

It's like he's worked hard for that distinction. For example, right now he could declare victory in Iraq and be the President who won the war. Right now. The whole thing could be framed up as a big victory, the boys come home to parades, his party marches triumphantly into November, the works. But he won't. And why not? See your OP. What were you disturbed about? Oh yeah, the fact that the end of war means pounding those swords into plowshares.

And remember your sig, the beauty of the 2nd is that it's not needed until they try to take it. Why get all worked up about it, to the extent of focusing on it while the other amendments get trampled to hell and gone? When they pass the law to ban guns, that's when you and I grab ours and join the revolution. Before that, worry about all our other freedoms that have been eroding.

Speaking of eroding or soon to be eroded freedoms... how about this "Fairness Doctrine" proposal you liberal guys and your favorite candidates gush about. :laugh: Nothing like passing a law to stop people from speaking/hearing the truth.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why are we slashing military investment even farther below 1960s and 1970s levels?

Because the coldwar is over, remember?

Unless, like the Neocons, you want to start it up again...

House
Senate

Who exactly has the majority in Congress?

Looks like the Democrats, like the neocons, want to start it up again.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
When they pass the law to ban guns, that's when you and I grab ours and join the revolution.

If we wait until then, it's gonna be too late.

We can have our revolution right now, and a peaceful one. Of course that would mean Americans educating themselves on the issues, not voting themselves others' resources, and, well, that's just too much to ask, isn't it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bob4432
i think bushie wants another bang before he goes out...if you are going to be remembered as probably the worst president in history, why not go out w/ a bang, so iran?

It's like he's worked hard for that distinction. For example, right now he could declare victory in Iraq and be the President who won the war. Right now. The whole thing could be framed up as a big victory, the boys come home to parades, his party marches triumphantly into November, the works. But he won't. And why not? See your OP. What were you disturbed about? Oh yeah, the fact that the end of war means pounding those swords into plowshares.

And remember your sig, the beauty of the 2nd is that it's not needed until they try to take it. Why get all worked up about it, to the extent of focusing on it while the other amendments get trampled to hell and gone? When they pass the law to ban guns, that's when you and I grab ours and join the revolution. Before that, worry about all our other freedoms that have been eroding.

Speaking of eroding or soon to be eroded freedoms... how about this "Fairness Doctrine" proposal you liberal guys and your favorite candidates gush about. :laugh: Nothing like passing a law to stop people from speaking/hearing the truth.

I have NEVER supported the 'Fairness Doctrine,' nor will I ever.

Is that even part of this topic? Take your partisan bullshit and shove it up your fucking ass.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
When they pass the law to ban guns, that's when you and I grab ours and join the revolution.

If we wait until then, it's gonna be too late.

We can have our revolution right now, and a peaceful one. Of course that would mean Americans educating themselves on the issues, not voting themselves others' resources, and, well, that's just too much to ask, isn't it?

How could it ever be too late? That's like saying the Drug War worked. Passing a law won't make the people's gun disappear.

What you're arguing for here BTW is called Open society.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bob4432
i think bushie wants another bang before he goes out...if you are going to be remembered as probably the worst president in history, why not go out w/ a bang, so iran?

It's like he's worked hard for that distinction. For example, right now he could declare victory in Iraq and be the President who won the war. Right now. The whole thing could be framed up as a big victory, the boys come home to parades, his party marches triumphantly into November, the works. But he won't. And why not? See your OP. What were you disturbed about? Oh yeah, the fact that the end of war means pounding those swords into plowshares.

And remember your sig, the beauty of the 2nd is that it's not needed until they try to take it. Why get all worked up about it, to the extent of focusing on it while the other amendments get trampled to hell and gone? When they pass the law to ban guns, that's when you and I grab ours and join the revolution. Before that, worry about all our other freedoms that have been eroding.

Speaking of eroding or soon to be eroded freedoms... how about this "Fairness Doctrine" proposal you liberal guys and your favorite candidates gush about. :laugh: Nothing like passing a law to stop people from speaking/hearing the truth.

I have NEVER supported the 'Fairness Doctrine,' nor will I ever.

Is that even part of this topic? Take your partisan bullshit and shove it up your fucking ass.

Temper temper, dre, lol.

You don't get to force all the republican/conservative shit on me without you having to shoulder at least a little of the democrat/liberal shit on you. :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Conky
Temper temper, dre, lol.

You don't get to force all the republican/conservative shit on me without you having to shoulder at least a little of the democrat/liberal shit on you. :laugh:

The difference between me and you is that I discuss topics intelligently and from various perspectives, while you're just a trolling wingnut moron. There's always gotta be one of you on every board, I swear, that anti-intellectual dipshit who never stays on topic, thinks the whole world exists in partisan black-and-white, hurls insults and name-calling at everyone even when not provoked, and uses some :laugh: emoticon because he foolishly thinks he makes him look smart.

BTW, I would love to see where I've forced any "republican/conservative shit" on you. Links would be helpful. Because if you were an actual conservative, you would have my respect. Real conservatives are rarity I admire. Unfortunately, you just come off as an ignorant hack.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Conky
Temper temper, dre, lol.

You don't get to force all the republican/conservative shit on me without you having to shoulder at least a little of the democrat/liberal shit on you. :laugh:

The difference between me and you is that I discuss topics intelligently and from various perspectives, while you're just a trolling wingnut moron. There's always gotta be one of you on every board, I swear, that anti-intellectual dipshit who never stays on topic, thinks the whole world exists in partisan black-and-white, hurls insults and name-calling at everyone even when not provoked, and uses some :laugh: emoticon because he foolishly thinks he makes him look smart.

BTW, I would love to see where I've forced any "republican/conservative shit" on you. Links would be helpful. Because if you were an actual conservative, you would have my respect. Real conservatives are rarity I admire. Unfortunately, you just come off as an ignorant hack.

Wow, more insults. Never saw that coming. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Conky
Temper temper, dre, lol.

You don't get to force all the republican/conservative shit on me without you having to shoulder at least a little of the democrat/liberal shit on you. :laugh:

The difference between me and you is that I discuss topics intelligently and from various perspectives, while you're just a trolling wingnut moron. There's always gotta be one of you on every board, I swear, that anti-intellectual dipshit who never stays on topic, thinks the whole world exists in partisan black-and-white, hurls insults and name-calling at everyone even when not provoked, and uses some :laugh: emoticon because he foolishly thinks he makes him look smart.

BTW, I would love to see where I've forced any "republican/conservative shit" on you. Links would be helpful. Because if you were an actual conservative, you would have my respect. Real conservatives are a rarity I admire. Unfortunately, you just come off as an ignorant hack.

Wow, more insults. Never saw that coming. :roll:

Yes, because I told you that you dream of fellating Rush Limbaugh. Wait, no I didn't. :roll:

Or because I foisted on you political beliefs that you actually don't have. Wait, I didn't do that either. :roll:

You opened this can of pwnage on yourself, pal. While I'm cracking another beer and am willing to kick your ass all night.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
How could it ever be too late? That's like saying the Drug War worked. Passing a law won't make the people's gun disappear.

But it might make people disappear. And for them, it would have been too late. That's what I mean.

Why revolt with guns when we can revolt with votes? While we still have them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
How could it ever be too late? That's like saying the Drug War worked. Passing a law won't make the people's gun disappear.

But it might make people disappear. And for them, it would have been too late. That's what I mean.

Why revolt with guns when we can revolt with votes? While we still have them.

That revolution by vote is taking place right now. Note the anger and desperation of the Bush lovers as their Great Leader's power slips away. Their greatest fear is the knowledge that even if McCain wins, they still lose.

I have no real desire for armed revolution, I was explaining to Bob here what Jefferson meant in that quote in his sig. But then again, Jefferson was a big fan of armed revolution.

And sorry, but you know I won't vote for Barr. That guy was like the antichrist in the Reagan/Bush I era. Badnarik getting the LP nom with his silly conspiracy antics in 2004 was bad enough, Barr getting the nom this year was enough for me to leave the party permanently. Harry Browne is spinning in his grave fast enough to mess up the earth's rotation.

 

[sandorski]

All the Loons hang out at that Blogsite I see.

I really don't see what is objectionable to what Obama said.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
All the Loons hang out at that Blogsite I see.

I really don't see what is objectionable to what Obama said.

There's nothing objectionable to it except that, in the US, war is another govt entitlement program, and Obama is telling the recipients of this particular form of socialist welfare that he is going to reform it. That would be bad enough if we were talking social security or similar, except that the people on the war dole have been brainwashed into believing that they're not on the dole (as though their paychecks came from something other than our tax dollars). Quite the opposite, they fancy themselves fighters of freedom and proponents of small govt. It's tragic.