Obama rally in Des Moines

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Way to avoid finding the answer.

lol, this is getting comical now. The "answer" is an opinionated one that each individual would have to answer. I just keep reading about how all this change will be great, but nobody seems to be actually posting an opinion on what specifically will be better and why.

I've done my own research on plans that I like or dislike for both candidates, and nothing sticks out to me as both actually being implemented and also creating a huge positive net change for America.

I hate Mccain's plan for a health insurance credit. I hate Obama's inevitable reduction of military size (I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking regular troop strength). I know that each candidate has plans on changing a capital gains tax, but even after doing reading I'm not sure which would be better for the country long term. I can keep going, but I don't see any almighty and powerful change coming down the tube.

So to re-ask my question, what magical change is supposed to make things better? If you personally don't have an answer then I don't really care unless you are touting a change. This question was really intended for people who have a feeling in their head that life will truly be better if Obama won, and asking why they specifically think that.

Originally posted by: alien42

i thought i had, you asked about "magical change" and that is what i was responding to. i do not think it is necessarily his advertising that has worked, although that is a piece of the puzzle. inspiration is a powerful force.

If you truly think that inspirational speeches will make American life significantly better, then I can't change your opinion. Sorry for my earlier response.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

There is absolutely no reason we should be spending so much damn money on the military. 25% reduction is not enough IMHO, we are no longer in a Cold War era.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
There is absolutely no reason we should be spending so much damn money on the military. 25% reduction is not enough IMHO, we are no longer in a Cold War era.

That is your opinion. Bill Clinton's gigantic manpower cuts directly led to many problems during the Iraq/Afghanistan war. We didn't have enough manpower to sustain enough numbers in country and went with a lower number then appropriate for most of the duration. Thankfully we're past that and numbers will start decreasing more then they already have.

Now, you might not like the fact that we went to Iraq/Afghanistan but you don't have to. Just realize that extra manpower and equipment is better then not enough.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
There is absolutely no reason we should be spending so much damn money on the military. 25% reduction is not enough IMHO, we are no longer in a Cold War era.

That is your opinion. Bill Clinton's gigantic manpower cuts directly led to many problems during the Iraq/Afghanistan war. We didn't have enough manpower to sustain enough numbers in country and went with a lower number then appropriate for most of the duration. Thankfully we're past that and numbers will start decreasing more then they already have.

Now, you might not like the fact that we went to Iraq/Afghanistan but you don't have to. Just realize that extra manpower and equipment is better then not enough.

Iraq was an unnecessary War. The US Military was certainly adequate to meet the real need in Afghanistan. Thus "Clinton"(not really who's to blame btw) left plenty of military to deal with the Need within the Bush Presidency.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with our misadventures in Iraq. If you believe that you and Sean Hannity need to a get a room.

What we need to do is modernize our military to deal with the new threats we face, mainly guerilla terrorism. This means substantial reduction in the number of active boots on the ground and more focus on unmanned automated technology.

The ideal world I want to live in is one in which nobody has weapons. We can't get there if we are constantly building up our military.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
There is absolutely no reason we should be spending so much damn money on the military. 25% reduction is not enough IMHO, we are no longer in a Cold War era.

That is your opinion. Bill Clinton's gigantic manpower cuts directly led to many problems during the Iraq/Afghanistan war. We didn't have enough manpower to sustain enough numbers in country and went with a lower number then appropriate for most of the duration. Thankfully we're past that and numbers will start decreasing more then they already have.

Now, you might not like the fact that we went to Iraq/Afghanistan but you don't have to. Just realize that extra manpower and equipment is better then not enough.

Two points. First, while it's easy for the right to use Clinton as a scape goat, did you ever consider laying some of the blame at GWB's feet for miring us in two wars simultaneously, especially when one was an optional war of aggression? Launching a nearly unilateral invasion and occupation of a country that doesn't want us there tends to be a labor intensive and costly, far more than merely defending ourselves. Go figure.

Second, we have 5% of the world's population, yet spend about as much on "defense" as the other 95% of the world combined. Why? How can one possibly rationalize this as reasonable and necessary?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Iraq was an unnecessary War. The US Military was certainly adequate to meet the real need in Afghanistan. Thus "Clinton"(not really who's to blame btw) left plenty of military to deal with the Need within the Bush Presidency.

You missed the point again. What happens when there is a major conflict that requires US manpower whether it is a conflict far or near and we don't have enough troops? That's my opinion and without posting anything constructive you wont change it.

Oh, and I labeled it the Clinton cutback so that people would realize which one I was referring to. I don't care about Clinton anymore, he's out of the picture.

I'l just assume that you're not going to answer my question.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Bill Clinton had nothing to do with our misadventures in Iraq. If you believe that you and Sean Hannity need to a get a room.

What we need to do is modernize our military to deal with the new threats we face, mainly guerilla terrorism. This means substantial reduction in the number of active boots on the ground and more focus on unmanned automated technology.

The ideal world I want to live in is one in which nobody has weapons. We can't get there if we are constantly building up our military.

Ask a soldier from the 101st who in the last 5 years was on a typical cycle of 10 months at home, and 15 months overseas. If we had more troops, it would have been far less severe.

And I have no idea who the hell Hannity is, nor do i care. Yes, our military will get smaller with the increase of technology but right now is way to soon.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Iraq was an unnecessary War. The US Military was certainly adequate to meet the real need in Afghanistan. Thus "Clinton"(not really who's to blame btw) left plenty of military to deal with the Need within the Bush Presidency.

You missed the point again. What happens when there is a major conflict that requires US manpower whether it is a conflict far or near and we don't have enough troops? That's my opinion and without posting anything constructive you wont change it.

Oh, and I labeled it the Clinton cutback so that people would realize which one I was referring to. I don't care about Clinton anymore, he's out of the picture.

I'l just assume that you're not going to answer my question.

A major Conflict won't just pop out of nowhere. There will be time to build up a Military capable.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Bill Clinton had nothing to do with our misadventures in Iraq. If you believe that you and Sean Hannity need to a get a room.

What we need to do is modernize our military to deal with the new threats we face, mainly guerilla terrorism. This means substantial reduction in the number of active boots on the ground and more focus on unmanned automated technology.

The ideal world I want to live in is one in which nobody has weapons. We can't get there if we are constantly building up our military.

Ask a soldier from the 101st who in the last 5 years was on a typical cycle of 10 months at home, and 15 months overseas. If we had more troops, it would have been far less severe.

And I have no idea who the hell Hannity is, nor do i care. Yes, our military will get smaller with the increase of technology but right now is way to soon.

Again, Iraq was unnecessary.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
First, while it's easy for the right to use Clinton as a scape goat..

I don't give a shit who actually did it, there is no time travel technology that I know of so what's done is done. We can only look at the effects of it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
There is absolutely no reason we should be spending so much damn money on the military. 25% reduction is not enough IMHO, we are no longer in a Cold War era.

That is your opinion.

Bill Clinton's gigantic manpower cuts directly led to many problems during the Iraq/Afghanistan war.

We didn't have enough manpower to sustain enough numbers in country and went with a lower number then appropriate for most of the duration. Thankfully we're past that and numbers will start decreasing more then they already have.

Now, you might not like the fact that we went to Iraq/Afghanistan but you don't have to. Just realize that extra manpower and equipment is better then not enough.

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
First, while it's easy for the right to use Clinton as a scape goat..

I don't give a shit who actually did it, there is no time travel technology that I know of so what's done is done. We can only look at the effects of it.

I'm serious, are you having a psychotic break?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

A major Conflict won't just pop out of nowhere. There will be time to build up a Military capable.

Before the German invasion of Poland, our military had 175,000 men. Luckily there was a massive buildup over the next year before we were attacked, but I don't think that a draft would go over so well anymore.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

I'm serious, are you having a psychotic break?

Huh? I don't give a crap who did it. Bill Clinton was the president when the cuts occurred correct? What exactly did you want me to post to describe the event that I was talking about?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
First, while it's easy for the right to use Clinton as a scape goat..

I don't give a shit who actually did it, there is no time travel technology that I know of so what's done is done. We can only look at the effects of it.

"I'l just assume that you're not going to answer my question."

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

"I'l just assume that you're not going to answer my question."



Second, we have 5% of the world's population, yet spend about as much on "defense" as the other 95% of the world combined. Why? How can one possibly rationalize this as reasonable and necessary?

Are those numbers pre Iraq invasion or post? If it's post invasion, then the answers are obvious, war costs a shit ton of money. If they are pre war numbers, then I honestly don't know how to answer your question other then the high training costs to our well payed military. Other major powers with large armies don't exactly pay there soldiers well.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

A major Conflict won't just pop out of nowhere. There will be time to build up a Military capable.

Before the German invasion of Poland, our military had 175,000 men. Luckily there was a massive buildup over the next year before we were attacked, but I don't think that a draft would go over so well anymore.

Hard to say. Depends on the situation. The situation with Germany is a good example of my point. Germany began it's Military build up 4-5 years before the War got started. Many Nations began responding to it shortly after the Germans began building their Military.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yep. It looks as though there are some cracks in the facade the media and dems have created.

Uh-oh it's the MSM boogieman again...

Need a recent example? DesMoines Register did a writeup on a democrat ad that was only run once because the candidate had run out of money and could only scrape up enough to run it once. But ofcourse the "paper" decided it was worthy of a special write-up. They asked the R candidate's campaign for a comment and they gave a statement...but the DMR didn't include it since it didn't fit the agenda of the story. Go figure.

But go ahead and continue to be blind to the obvious bias in the MSM if you wish.

Now back to BHO having to go to Iowa to campaign when Iowa is supposed to be a "lock" for him...

Not sure if any asked yet....

Do you have any proof of this claim? I'd like to read an independent review of this incident.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

A major Conflict won't just pop out of nowhere. There will be time to build up a Military capable.

Before the German invasion of Poland, our military had 175,000 men. Luckily there was a massive buildup over the next year before we were attacked, but I don't think that a draft would go over so well anymore.

Hard to say. Depends on the situation. The situation with Germany is a good example of my point. Germany began it's Military build up 4-5 years before the War got started. Many Nations began responding to it shortly after the Germans began building their Military.

You're right, it completely depends on the situation but to assume that no major conflicts will happen ever again is naive. Germany was rebuilding because of previous military restrictions, but the nations surrounding them did not respond to them at all. Why do you think France and Poland got absolutely rolled over? Outdated machinery and low troop numbers. We have an advantage of having some huge ass oceans separating us from most of the world.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Way to avoid finding the answer.

lol, this is getting comical now. The "answer" is an opinionated one that each individual would have to answer. I just keep reading about how all this change will be great, but nobody seems to be actually posting an opinion on what specifically will be better and why.

I've done my own research on plans that I like or dislike for both candidates, and nothing sticks out to me as both actually being implemented and also creating a huge positive net change for America.

I hate Mccain's plan for a health insurance credit. I hate Obama's inevitable reduction of military size (I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking regular troop strength). I know that each candidate has plans on changing a capital gains tax, but even after doing reading I'm not sure which would be better for the country long term. I can keep going, but I don't see any almighty and powerful change coming down the tube.

So to re-ask my question, what magical change is supposed to make things better? If you personally don't have an answer then I don't really care unless you are touting a change. This question was really intended for people who have a feeling in their head that life will truly be better if Obama won, and asking why they specifically think that.

Originally posted by: alien42

i thought i had, you asked about "magical change" and that is what i was responding to. i do not think it is necessarily his advertising that has worked, although that is a piece of the puzzle. inspiration is a powerful force.

If you truly think that inspirational speeches will make American life significantly better, then I can't change your opinion. Sorry for my earlier response.

First, I think the only intellectually honest answer to a rhetorical question of how things will change under an Obama administration (I think that's your question) would be: a simple declarative "Don't Know"

What I do know is how each campaign has been run, and so I can extrapolate from that data.

Beyond that, I personally wish to punish, all those who voted to give GWB war powers. I thought it was totally chicken-shit and criminal to punt a right that violates constitutional separation of powers.

I hope one change for sure, since Obama is a constitutional scholar, he won't play fast and loose with the Constitution.

But the only honest answer is: Don't Know. Same answer for any other future President, real or imagined.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: microbial
First, I think the only intellectually honest answer to a rhetorical question of how things will change under an Obama administration (I think that's your question) would be: a simple declarative "Don't Know"

What I do know is how each campaign has been run, and so I can extrapolate from that data.

Beyond that, I personally wish to punish, all those who voted to give GWB war powers. I thought it was totally chicken-shit and criminal to punt a right that violates constitutional separation of powers.

I hope one change for sure, since Obama is a constitutional scholar, he won't play fast and loose with the Constitution.

But the only honest answer is: Don't Know. Same answer for any other future President, real or imagined.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for. I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate the truth.

The fact is, we have the right to vote for any candidate for any reason. If someone wanted to flip a coin that would be perfectly acceptable too. Part of why our nation is so great is because we have this unrestricted right.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: microbial
First, I think the only intellectually honest answer to a rhetorical question of how things will change under an Obama administration (I think that's your question) would be: a simple declarative "Don't Know"

What I do know is how each campaign has been run, and so I can extrapolate from that data.

Beyond that, I personally wish to punish, all those who voted to give GWB war powers. I thought it was totally chicken-shit and criminal to punt a right that violates constitutional separation of powers.

I hope one change for sure, since Obama is a constitutional scholar, he won't play fast and loose with the Constitution.

But the only honest answer is: Don't Know. Same answer for any other future President, real or imagined.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for. I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate the truth.

The fact is, we have the right to vote for any candidate for any reason. If someone wanted to flip a coin that would be perfectly acceptable too. Part of why our nation is so great is because we have this unrestricted right.

:beer:

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski
You want the Status Quo?

Tell what is so horrible about my life right now? Congress just gave me a $200 a month raise to my GI bill, I get free education thanks to the state of Illinois, and I work a part time job as an intern with a government contractor that deals with security clearances and isn't going anywhere. I don't own a home, because I ran the numbers twenty times and realized that I can't afford one, and I am enjoying paying less for all of my bills lately. Not a single family or friend is unemployed, and none of them are in a mortage crunch either. I pay out of pocket for health insurance, and I just tested it recently and was covered just fine.


So what fucking magical change is supposed to make things better? People under financial hardships are typically there because of their own actions, and people having financial success are generally there on their own accords as well, of course with a little bit of luck mixed in as well.

The repubs keep going in the middle east your permanent address could be iraq/iran/syria.

Good enough reason?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

A major Conflict won't just pop out of nowhere. There will be time to build up a Military capable.

Before the German invasion of Poland, our military had 175,000 men. Luckily there was a massive buildup over the next year before we were attacked, but I don't think that a draft would go over so well anymore.

Hard to say. Depends on the situation. The situation with Germany is a good example of my point. Germany began it's Military build up 4-5 years before the War got started. Many Nations began responding to it shortly after the Germans began building their Military.

You're right, it completely depends on the situation but to assume that no major conflicts will happen ever again is naive. Germany was rebuilding because of previous military restrictions, but the nations surrounding them did not respond to them at all. Why do you think France and Poland got absolutely rolled over? Outdated machinery and low troop numbers. We have an advantage of having some huge ass oceans separating us from most of the world.

France, Britain, and the US began responding to Germany's buildup. They began their own Modernization and buildup. France lost because Germany unexpectedly went around the Maginot Line attacking through Holland and Belgium.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: bctbct

The repubs keep going in the middle east your permanent address could be iraq/iran/syria.

Good enough reason?

We'll have troops in the middle east for a long time regardless of this outcome, but the number will decrease. It already has been. Casualties since the surge are drastically shrinking because the mission is being accomplished.