Gamecat

I can't believe you were going to go with Ron Paul. I always pegged you for a left-leaning centrist. Ron Paul, on the other hand, stikes me as a libertarian-leaning whacko. Do opposites attrack in politics as well as love?

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM. Reason : Page 2!]

2/27/2008 5:24:36 PM

http://sonofgold.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/re-obama-i-denounce-and-reject-farrakhan/

2/27/2008 5:25:36 PM

Quote :

"Kainen, Part of your education at NCSU is learning to recognize the art of persuasion when it's being practiced. Recognizing the subtle manipulators that clutter our minds and gently nudge our decisions. It's an important skill for navigating the world. "

Socks...watch it. You are starting to piss me of with your condescension. I appluad your passion for politics and some decent points (I still feel you make more bad points) but don't patronize me. I've made my point - I think it's ridiculous to say a skilled and tactful message is a bad thing. I don't care if IT IS a pepsi, a twinkie, or an Obama.

2/27/2008 5:43:53 PM

haha i didn't mean to sound condescending, only pretentious.

I'm not saying a well crafted message is a bad thing. I just think it's important to realize it is a crafted message when making decisions. For example, does one drink Coke because it taste better or because it's the "real thing"? Does it even matter?

This has actually been a great concern of "progressives" for a long time. From J.K.Galbraith and the Dependence Effect in the 1960's (see his book: The Affluent Society) to Naomi Klien and the No Logo campaign in this decade (see her book: No Logo).

I personally often feel like a concern for excessive advertising is over blown (see Hayek on the non-sequitur of the dependence effect), but I think it is something to keep in mind--especially in the voting booth. If one can't honestly defend a single policy Obama proposes, maybe one should consider the possibility they are buying a brand and not a candidate.

Again, I didn't mean to sound condescending. No hard feelings.

2/27/2008 6:00:20 PM

No hard feelings.

I think his overwhelming support or 'movement' is not because of any brand.....but those not voting on his specific policies have really taken a strong liking to what they see, hear, and read about Obama's character. I guess you could call that his 'organic' brand. His ability to inspire is no joke, and shouldn't be taken lightly because there are few Americans that routinely have the ability to do that for so many. Regardless if he takes office, a smart guy like that with his skills should keep putting it to more involving and good use. I hope that he does. I don't see him as snake oil.

His pressure under fire, composure, charisma, and strengths as a speaker and ability to relate to his audiences with an almost surgical precision would be characteristics that many American's find quite important in a leader. And what is wrong with that exactly? They certainly aren't BAD things and with a good platform, that coupling isn't a surprise that it is successful. And the entirety of that decision making or argument isn't vapid...in many other walks of life those things are what we seek out of leaders as well.

The problem with his detractors is that they compare Obama to like some type of deadly sexy fruit, empty and fake...some go so far as to say you'll pay for making this type of decision (he's a hitler, a terroist plant, whatever). I think that is fear.

No doubt he has experience lacking on his side but I think a good part of the country wants to give the dice a spirited roll coupled with a hedge bet in character judgment. People shouldn't feel so dissociated with politics but he's really drumming it up hard that that could change. And it might. Tough to say. It is rolling the dice to me too except I don't think there is a snake eyes or 'bad roll' here, just maybe a marginal with a good shot of being exceptional.

Plus It is not up to you, nor I, nor Rush Limbaugh to say whether or not that it is ultimately bad decision making to opt for what you see at present than what you've seen before. Clearly what everyone has seen before is not convincing, and they've had enough. If character and personal tact makes up a voter's framework of what is important to them - why deny them or say they are wrong?

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 6:22 PM. Reason : 123]

2/27/2008 6:18:01 PM

Quote :

"Socks``: I can't believe you were going to go with Ron Paul. I always pegged you for a left-leaning centrist. Ron Paul, on the other hand, stikes me as a libertarian-leaning whacko."

Constitutionalism never seemed so appropriate. It's a shame that he's libertarian to the point of ineffectual.

If it were still relevant, I'd love to argue the merits of his "whackhood," but given that he can't figure out how to get elected...

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM. Reason : nyb]

2/27/2008 8:21:15 PM

No shit, if Ron Paul hadn't been crazy on the military and his whacky gold standard talk (which could end up being reasonable if oil continues its astronomical climb), then I would have been really pumped about the possibility of him running successfully.

I certainly think that he has a great argument against all agency government in that there is no separation of power within them. And his commitment to drastically reducing government intervention in other areas of daily life would have been appreciated.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM. Reason : caint spull]

2/27/2008 8:34:13 PM

Quote :

"btw how come nobody has commented on obama's "church"? http://www.tucc.org/home.htm "

who gives a fuck about his church?

2/27/2008 9:56:11 PM

Quote :

"There are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Osama."

sorry.. I meant "Obama" my bad

2/27/2008 10:08:35 PM

This is going to hurt him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

I guess BHO missed the shooting down of the satelite last week.

2/28/2008 12:17:37 AM

I don't understand what you mean? He said he will cut spending to failed missile defense systems. What about last week was a missile defense system? The U.S. was shooting down one of it's own satellites. The reason they gave, obviously a lie, was about "bad chemicals" from the explosion. In all reality, it was a U.S. spy satellite, and they didn't want it to "fall into enemy hands." When has the missile defense system ever been used to... you know... defend us from missiles? Do you even think that anyone is ever going to launch missiles at us?

I also don't understand the title of that youtube.com video. 52 seconds on why he can't win a general election? Why is that? Are you telling me that people want us to be at Defcon 2 all the time? You want us to spend trillions of dollars to line the pockets of companies who make military weapons, airplanes, and missiles? If we spent less on building up a world-ending nuclear arsenal and more on improving the infrastructure of this country and our foreign relations, we would have no need for so many weapons.

If you want to have a war monger as a president, go live in North Korea. I'm sure you'll love the freedom there.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 8:30 AM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 8:29:25 AM

Quote :

"Do you even think that anyone is ever going to launch missiles at us? "

So do you believe that since it hasn't happened that it never can? Why do think that no one would ever attack the United States? Is it because we are so strong militarily? If that is your reasoning, then you should be opposed to his scaling down of military weapons research and development.

I see no problem with developing a "defense" system. It's name indicates that it won't ever be used offensively, not that it couldn't be used in that manner.

Also, his committment to "slowing the development of new weapons systems" is troubling. It's been the American technical and training advantage that has kept us a few steps ahead of the rest of the world the entire last century.

Please try not to respond with hate-filled, sarcastic remarks. I am hoping that that you will just explain your posturing and conclusory statements that indicate you know somehow that the US will never have a missile launched at its mainland or territories.

2/28/2008 9:11:59 AM

I can recall the patriot missle doing well.

He also says he will SLOW the development of new combat systems.

First didnt make the title of the video. Second it IS the job of our govt to protect its people. SO yes, I would rather spend a trillion dollars ensuring that the govt is doing thier job by protecting its citizens than spend it on paying for people to reproduce and viagra. I love the line "line the pockets of companies". I guess, I would. Id rather our money go to companies who create a product that makes us safer, provides jobs, healthcare for thier employees, taxes, etc. As opposed to paying people for being irresponsible. But thats just me.

I dont want a war mongerer, I want the govt to do its job.

2/28/2008 9:13:20 AM

Don't need new types of nuclear weapons to protect ourselves. Nuclear weapons are solely used for offense.

2/28/2008 9:32:51 AM

Quote :

"Don't need new types of nuclear weapons to protect ourselves. Nuclear weapons are solely used for offense."

While a world without nuclear weapons would be ideal, its not happening. So we do need them.

Prevent D only works in football, and it really doesnt work well.

2/28/2008 9:48:42 AM

Quote :

"I can recall the patriot missle doing well. "

PATRIOT is a very good SAM, but its use against ballistic missiles is a stopgap measure. It does reasonably well for what it is, but it is by no means a strategic missile defense system or anything close to it.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ^^ i would argue that nuclear weapons are primarily used for defense. see MAD.]

2/28/2008 9:59:47 AM

Nukes are almost exclusively used for defensive posturing...

2/28/2008 11:37:06 AM

Quote :

"So do you believe that since it hasn't happened that it never can? Why do think that no one would ever attack the United States? Is it because we are so strong militarily? If that is your reasoning, then you should be opposed to his scaling down of military weapons research and development. I see no problem with developing a "defense" system. It's name indicates that it won't ever be used offensively, not that it couldn't be used in that manner. Also, his committment to "slowing the development of new weapons systems" is troubling. It's been the American technical and training advantage that has kept us a few steps ahead of the rest of the world the entire last century. Please try not to respond with hate-filled, sarcastic remarks. I am hoping that that you will just explain your posturing and conclusory statements that indicate you know somehow that the US will never have a missile launched at its mainland or territories."

Would you not agree that a more appropriate response would be to perpetuate the idea that all the countries in the world should not have nuclear weapons? If no one else had nuclear weapons, we would not need nuclear weapons. MAD, while a defensive strategy, is a very scary scenario to live in.

Also, the idea that if something's never happened, we should not believe it cannot happen, is how the Bush Administration has kept American's in fear for the past 8 years. We've given up our liberties to feel like we're safe. We allowed the Patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, and torture camps to feel like we're safe from terrorists. We haven't had a terrorist attack.. does this mean that all the warrantless wiretappings, Patriot acts, and human torture have been the cause for this? Some statistics say that we are less safe due to a resurgence of Al-Qaeda and our "occupation" of Iraq. They argue that we have a very negative image due to all of this.

2/28/2008 12:10:38 PM

So you are rationalizing that the US government should not prepare for the possibility of a missile attack because you think that it creates fear? It would be negligence of the worst kind if the government failed to take preparatory steps to protect its people.


I agree that the benefits of maintaining Guantanamo are greatly outweighed by the cost to American persuasion and moral authority, but what does one(missile defense) have to do with the other. I also agree that the Patriot Act was a knee jerk reaction and our Senate and House should be working on a way to create a higher level of foreign suveillance without surveilling American citizens. I couldn't care less if they monitor every phone call of every illegally present person in the country or those who are not American citizens. The constitution isn't meant to protect anyone but Citizens.

There is no campaign to make people believe that we are going to be hit by a missile from Russia or Iran anytime soon. Although, they or any number of countries may want to do just that in the future. More likely Iran or some other beligerent nation will gain the capability to threaten England and France with missiles long before us which I suppose is one of the reasons we are placing or requesting areas in Eastern Europe to install these systems. One hypothetical (missile attack) is no less probable than the other (an attack never occurring), but the risk of human life is much greater by sitting on our laurels than by doing nothing especially when the reasoning is that you don't want to spread fear.

And does the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction really frighten you on a day to day basis? I hope not. Certainly if it were to ever occur, it would be a terrible loss of life and environment, but I would much rather have that incoming nuclear missile taken out in the Stratosphere over the ocean than detonate in NY. A missile defense system could actually prevent MAD if functioning properly.

2/28/2008 12:41:58 PM

2/28/2008 12:53:13 PM

Imagine Ghandi with Saddam Hussein-like authority to wield the resources of the United States. Rightly or wrongly, I think that's what people have projected onto Obama.

2/28/2008 2:03:03 PM

Quote :

" So you are rationalizing that the US government should not prepare for the possibility of a missile attack because you think that it creates fear? It would be negligence of the worst kind if the government failed to take preparatory steps to protect its people. "

Look at [any 1st world country except U.S., Russia, and China]. Notice how they have a tiny military compared the the United States. Notice how they are not constantly attacked and invaded. If having a huge amount of nuclear weapons was necessary to maintain your country's security, you would think that Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il would have taken over half of Europe by now. Yet, they are safe. Please justify again why it is necessary for the United States to spend so much more than other countries on defense.

In fact, here's a source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

From that source, you see this:

The United States spends 623 billion dollars on Defense. The REST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD spends 500 billion total.

The next country after the U.S. is China with 65 billion and Russia with 50 billion.

We spend TEN TIMES more than the next country. How can you justify that?

Quote :

" There is no campaign to make people believe that we are going to be hit by a missile from Russia or Iran anytime soon. Although, they or any number of countries may want to do just that in the future. More likely Iran or some other beligerent nation will gain the capability to threaten England and France with missiles long before us which I suppose is one of the reasons we are placing or requesting areas in Eastern Europe to install these systems. One hypothetical (missile attack) is no less probable than the other (an attack never occurring), but the risk of human life is much greater by sitting on our laurels than by doing nothing especially when the reasoning is that you don't want to spread fear. "

It's difficult to swallow this paragraph from you and answer you without sounding condescending. Most Americans have heard the press releases from the Bush Administration over the past 2 years. In these press releases, the Bush Administration has constantly claimed that Iran is making nuclear weapons, has the capability to make nuclear weapons, wants to attack us, is a threat, etc. etc.

As a summary, you can see these press releases in Keith Olbermann's special report on Dec. 6th, 2007:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zlF2YcnWUio

Quote :

" And does the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction really frighten you on a day to day basis? I hope not. Certainly if it were to ever occur, it would be a terrible loss of life and environment, but I would much rather have that incoming nuclear missile taken out in the Stratosphere over the ocean than detonate in NY. A missile defense system could actually prevent MAD if functioning properly. "

No, however, this is the way that the Republicans have been winning votes in the past decade. "Vote for us, or else the terrorists win." It sounds like I am making a joke, but when you look at the advertisements, at the arguments that the Republicans make, it is really true. You can see it now with Bush scolding Congress over not passing the wiretapping bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/washington/28cnd-bush.html?ref=business

You can see it in the arguments that John McCain makes against Barack Obama:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4359635&page=1

The Republicans want American voters to feel afraid. They want American voters to say, "Well do whatever you want. We'll greenlight whatever defense spending bills you want. Just don't let the terrorists get us!"

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 2:16:30 PM

To be the best you have to pay for it.

Without our military china could invade us with sticks and win, we just dont have the numbers they do.

Besides, its our govt's job to protect its citizens not pay for their viagra, retirement, housing, etc.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2008 2:26:37 PM

I really hope you're just trolling.

2/28/2008 2:43:45 PM

what did you disagree with?

2/28/2008 2:47:44 PM

Protecting citizens isn't always done with a gun you know.


The more you post the more I doubt that you are a real doctor.

2/28/2008 2:52:10 PM

Quote :

"It's difficult to swallow this paragraph from you and answer you without sounding condescending. Most Americans have heard the press releases from the Bush Administration over the past 2 years. In these press releases, the Bush Administration has constantly claimed that Iran is making nuclear weapons, has the capability to make nuclear weapons, wants to attack us, is a threat, etc. etc. "

It's difficult for me to understand why you can't tell the difference between the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon and the technology to deliver it accurately to a target thousands of miles away? When I hear the rhetoric about Iran, I hear Bush claiming that they want to bomb Israel and other American interests overseas, not the US. Although clearly that could be a goal sometime in the future.


Most Americans, unlike you, have listening and reading comprehension skills that exceed those of a pre-schooler. It's easy when you only hear what you want to.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 2:55 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/28/2008 2:54:10 PM

Quote :

"Protecting citizens isn't always done with a gun you know. "

No, but its a helluva deterant. Are you argueing over having the best military in the world? In favor of what exactly?

2/28/2008 3:01:15 PM

I'm not arguing against being able to protect ourselves militarily. I am, however, arguing that we don't need to be able to destroy the entire planet to defend ourselves.

I'd rather we have the best society than the best military though.

2/28/2008 3:05:24 PM

Quote :

"How can you justify that?"

OMFG WE NEED MOAR!!!1

2/28/2008 3:21:25 PM

who needs a military when you have "hope?"

2/28/2008 3:29:09 PM

Monkey, I wont argue that it doesnt sound nice, but its not the taxpayers responsiblity to pay for old guys erections. Our govt has overstepped itself and is paying for things we cant afford and we should have started in the first place. To take money away, yes Ill agree we spend a shitload, from programs that are the job of the govt and that individuals cant really do, to raise people is wrong. imo

Dabird, yep. Most people know freedom isnt free and defending our country costs money. Hope is free, and it works almost as well as change.

What is that line from Bad Santa? Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first. haha

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2008 3:30:06 PM

Quote :

"Are you argueing over having the best military in the world?"

If we have the best military in the world, why do we have more privately contracted "mercenaries" in Iraq than US troops?

I don't doubt ours is the best in the world, I don't know really... but my question is still valid. Is outsourcing the war to the Prince family, effectively handing them(selves) billions of tax payers' dollars, an indicator that money is probably the biggest motivation in this war?

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 3:44:45 PM

^ Because our President didn't ask for enough troops in the first place, and neither he nor any predecessor will be able to get enough troops to replace the Blackwater forces given the current state of the war.

2/28/2008 3:51:48 PM

Quote :

"If we have the best military in the world, why do we have more privately contracted "mercenaries" in Iraq than US troops? "

because they are largely hired by the US contrators doing work in the area as body guards. the US Army has enough on its plate than to take on this assignment as well.

2/28/2008 3:55:18 PM

The State Department is quite involved. Don't play like the Federal Government is some bystander here...

2/28/2008 3:57:36 PM

Let's make an analogy, maybe that will help people.

You and I are both shopping for a car. We are only concerned about the crash rating, or how safe the car is.

I purchase a car with a 5 star crash rating for $55,000.

You purchase a car with a 5 star crash rating for $655,000.

Our cars are equally safe in terms of the amount of injuries drivers sustain while driving them.

You claim your car must be safer because you spent 10 times as much on it, and your only proof is the fact that you, as well as me, have not had any injuries while driving the car.

Why would anyone want to spend 10 times as much for an equal amount of safety? How can you justify spending 10 times as much?

2/28/2008 4:08:25 PM

Quote :

"^ Because our President didn't ask for enough troops in the first place, and neither he nor any predecessor will be able to get enough troops to replace the Blackwater forces given the current state of the war. "

Then why was blackwater training and building thousands of troops before the war even started? Just in case the president made the same exact mistake that he made?

Bullshit, Cash is ruling the war, which is why McCain wants to extend it. He wants a piece of the pie (albeit a HUGE MOTHERUCKING pie)

2/28/2008 4:21:39 PM

I don't think "reducing spending" equates to us becoming militarily inept.

I'm sure we could save a few (billion) dollars and still have the most advanced military in the world. Calm the fuck down.

2/28/2008 4:24:33 PM

^^^ You have no proof otherwise either. So far all anyone has presented is opinions.

Quote :

"If we have the best military in the world, why do we have more privately contracted "mercenaries" in Iraq than US troops? "

There may be more contractors, but there are definitely more troops than armed body guards.

Good try.

Contractors are used to save money, which I guess if the government wanted to it could really beef up the Sea Bees, etc. and have them take care of all the infrastructure construction that is occurring, but then you would just bitch about more money being spent.

Our ability to project force anywhere in the world is the envy of everyone else in the world. These other countries that you guys covet so much, which I have to assume are countries such as Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. which have very high standards of living and spend very little on the military, don't have to spend a lot on their military because we do.

I suppose that reinforces your desire to cut funding to the military which is fine I suppose. It's almost worth it just to not have to listen to all the incessant whiny Democrats for another four years to vote for Obama.

It's hard to imagine that when most of you have never left the country, probably none of you have ever served in the military(save for Duke, chembob and a couple of others), or even been exposed to any sort of formal training concerning national defense or foreign policy, that you can somehow form the authority in your heads to assume that anything you think is even relevant.

On the one hand, in this thread, we have some Democrats complaining that too much money is being spent on the military and on the other Democrats complaining that we are using to many contractors in Iraq. None of you are making any sense.

You can be mad all day long about the fact that we are in Iraq, but we own that mess now.

At the very least, Obama went to law school and has some grasp on Constitutional law and foreign policy, but it's clear none of you have.

Quote :

"Bullshit, Cash is ruling the war"

This and every other war that has ever been fought in the history of mankind. Money in one form (gold, land to plant crops) or another (oil) has always been the catalyst and the reason for war.

Stating that the war is about money and power and and thinking that is somehow shocking or profound just highlights your poor grasp of the world around you.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM. Reason : sadf]

2/28/2008 4:34:15 PM

Quote :

"You have no proof otherwise either. So far all anyone has presented is opinions. "

I have proof in the number of attacks against countries in the past 8 years.

2/28/2008 4:37:35 PM

^^ most of that information is just plain wrong

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 4:37:45 PM

How can my opinion be wrong?


Oh that's right, because it doesn't fit with what your beliefs are.


Please show me something that states that there are more mercenaries than US troops. ANd try to make sure its not from some shit site like rawstory.com.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 4:43 PM. Reason : dfs]

2/28/2008 4:42:07 PM

dude, just read anything on blackwater. Jesus. It isn't a fucking secret.

2/28/2008 5:03:34 PM

^ do you research anything you say?

According to Major General Darryl Scott, commander of the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan, there are only 6,000 contracted security guards working in Iraq. That's a very small portion of the 160,000 contractors working there.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-17-iraq-monday_N.htm?csp=34

It's an equally small portion of the number American troops currently in Iraq--158,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

Some news sources have quoted higher numbers, but as Paul McLeary of the Columbia Journalism Review points out, they never actually state their sources.
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/post_56.php

The biggest estimate comes from the International Contractors Association, which estimates there to be 50,000 security guards in Iraq last year. That is still only 1/3 as big as the total number of American troops currently serving there.

I didn't know these numbers off hand. I googled for about 5 minutes. I recomend you do the same before you make an ass of yourself.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ``]

2/28/2008 5:19:40 PM

I read this book called "Blackwater' that has all sorts of awesome information in it.

Then I looked on the internet, and basically saw some conflicting reports for the actual numbers... which the book addressed also.

if you want to believe the government isn't stealing money from us with this war, go ahead. ignorance is bliss.

The Prince famiy now has enough money to BUY Iraq btw

2/28/2008 5:25:03 PM

^ Though as I said (post edit) even the biggest estimate of the number of "mercenaries" in Iraq is 50,000. That's less than 1/3 the number of US troops over there.

The data just don't support your contention. There are, without a day, more troops in Iraq than there are paid security guards. PERIOD.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ``]

2/28/2008 5:29:03 PM

WRONG

and it's pretty gay that you call them security guards. Even Erik Prince doesn't call them security guards

they're cold blooded killers, and they're expensive as hell

Who cares though, as long as they're murdering Arabs right?

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 5:33 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 5:31:18 PM

Prove it.
My sources are USA Today (6,000 mercenaries)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-17-iraq-monday_N.htm?csp=34

and the New York Times (30,000 mercenaries).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

Where are you getting your info?

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ``]

2/28/2008 5:34:35 PM

I read it in the book, it keeps a shadow "army" that often outnumbers the US Troops. It makes sense - considering how much the war is costing.

2/28/2008 5:40:47 PM