just proof of which one has more experience.
Obama is a featherweight, even moreso than Qualye was accused of being
just proof of which one has more experience.
Obama is a featherweight, even moreso than Qualye was accused of being
Takes positions? More like gets caught without having one.
Look, he would not have tripped up over the issue if
a. he had a position
b. he had experience
He had neither, as such he will continously fumble unless he sits down and decides how he stands on each of the major issues out there. Do we want another poll driven President?
You should clarify (b). He would not have tripped up if he had campaign experience.
And (a) isn't completely true, at least in relation to the other candidates.
From the article, Hillary's position on the matter seems to be "I am concerned about talking about it...[and] how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons." Not wanting to use nukes is much more of a position than not wanting to talk about it.
Heh heh. "Poll-driven" does seem to imply that he'd listen to the will of the American people, doesn't it?
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Nor should they be used, lest our opponent ups the anti. Then it becomes our responsibility to respond to force with force.
Response in war is situational, not an absolute. If it were Iran?s Hezbollah, the answer should be obvious. If it were AQ, there are tribal regions no one but they control. In such cases we know where to strike.
A people, a group, a region, a society may also come to understand that the eradication of others can and will bring about their own. That can only work under the threat of such a reality. When you break it down and offer comforting assurances that we will not respond, when they call your bluff then MAD no longer exists.
I do not rule out the possibility that we will one day face an intelligent opponent who does not leave their fingerprint and return address on such acts of war. I wonder again, you argue vigorously against stopping nuclear proliferation among hostile terrorist sponsoring nations, such as Iran. Do you not also see the outcome of suggesting to them war is a one way street? They might take such an invitation seriously.
I am happy at least that we can come to agreement that ?if we have proof?. That is a start.
Remember Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If you think war must never be met with war, your insane detachment from reality is suicidal by definition. The point is we are alive today because our forefathers would not go quietly into the night, as you preach. Can you say the same for your children?
Originally posted by: dahunan
Get back to us when we stop killing innocent brown people in Iraq
I see you?ve graduated to the worst of the lot. Is the world of color and racism to you? Islam is not racist as you, it converts everyone equally and the Islamists are only defined by their zealotry to their religion and their bloodlust towards infidels. If you cannot see beyond calling them brown then it?s truly a wonder if you could see them at all.
In the end gentlemen, an appearance of strength is the only reason MAD exists and nuclear weapons are not lobbed at other nations (like us) today. If you hastily seek to dissolve that appearance by assurance to others that MAD does not exist, then I hope I do not live in a dense population when you reap your reward. If Moonbeam wants to speak of insanity, why does he not speak of you?
I would call you an imbecile, Jackalas, but what you are is a coward whose fear has driven him insane. You are the kind of nut case who would nuke Oklahoma to get Timothy McVeigh.
Odd, only Abama mentions using nukes, yet everyone seems to think he said other wise and Clinton suggested using nukes, Clinton said not one word about using nukes.
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Heh heh. "Poll-driven" does seem to imply that he'd listen to the will of the American people, doesn't it?
If Lincoln followed the will of the people in his time, slavery would likely have continued for some time longer.
And ... think of all those people that wouldn't have died in the civil war / war between the states ...
Sometimes you have to do what's right, not what's popular.
It really looks like Obama has been imploding recently. I think Hillary is really just using him as a punching bag. The only real winner in all of this is Edwards.
This all seems funny to me. I've just never had the impression that there was an abundant supply of brilliance in the capital building when it comes to actual policy. If Obama's experience is truly inferior to Hillary's, 99.99999% of Americans would be to inexperienced to understand why. It's almost an insult to the greater American intellect.
This all seems funny to me. I've just never had the impression that there was an abundant supply of brilliance in the capital building when it comes to actual policy. If Obama's experience is truly inferior to Hillary's, 99.99999% of Americans would be to inexperienced to understand why. It's almost an insult to the greater American intellect.
If you read the speeches in their entirety or listen to the entire context of an answer, he hasn't said anything really extraordinary.
Now, if you only read purposefully eye-catching newspaper headlines (or worse yet, only read P&N thread topics), then I suppose it might look like an implosion...
One of the favorite rightwing boogeymen- "what if terrarists detonated a nuke in America?"
Of all the possibilities, it's easily the most far fetched, yet somehow one of the most used for agitprop purposes...
Obama merely reminds us of our long standing policy against first use of nukes... And it seems kinda pointless to speculate on nuking osama when we can't seem to find him anywhere... or that the nuclear terrorist scenario is merely a rightwing prop rather than a credible threat ouside of a Schwarzenegger movie......
Amazing how we get from a few radicals exploiting a glaring security loophole to total paranoia and a willingness to violate our own principles to protect ourselves form such imaginary threats...
Of all the possibilities, it's easily the most far fetched, yet somehow one of the most used for agitprop purposes...
Obama merely reminds us of our long standing policy against first use of nukes... And it seems kinda pointless to speculate on nuking osama when we can't seem to find him anywhere... or that the nuclear terrorist scenario is merely a rightwing prop rather than a credible threat ouside of a Schwarzenegger movie......
Amazing how we get from a few radicals exploiting a glaring security loophole to total paranoia and a willingness to violate our own principles to protect ourselves form such imaginary threats...
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Heh heh. "Poll-driven" does seem to imply that he'd listen to the will of the American people, doesn't it?
If Lincoln followed the will of the people in his time, slavery would likely have continued for some time longer.
And ... think of all those people that wouldn't have died in the civil war / war between the states ...
Sometimes you have to do what's right, not what's popular.
I guess I'll ask the obvious question, what exactly is this "right" you speak of that you are paralleling to slavery and the civil war?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter