[Menace]

It is a myth that government doesn't create jobs. Who do the fine folks at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin really work for? Now, whether and to what extent government should create jobs is a separate issue. I would also point out that the majority of people outside of government have also never run a successful company. Generally, jobs bills create jobs when the guy you like signs the bill. When the guy you don't like signs it, it won't create jobs.

[Samseau]

All government jobs are funded with debt, there's no sustainability to them

[kerouac]

(12-09-2011 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

All government jobs are funded with debt, there's no sustainability to them

I think the correct way to put it is that all government is run on tax dollars and debt, and when taxes are low we must rely more on debt. Republicans of the past were more pro-infrastructure, and, well, keeping the Republic in tip top shape, thus fine with having a higher tax rate for everyone. The trickle down theory of Reagan is when things changed (for the worse) which is why we are where we are today-- the country is crumbling, and the rich are getting richer. It's not a sustainable way for a successful country.

[tenderman100]

(12-09-2011 01:43 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

I think the correct way to put it is that all government is run on tax dollars and debt, and when taxes are low we must rely more on debt. Republicans of the past were more pro-infrastructure, and, well, keeping the Republic in tip top shape, thus fine with having a higher tax rate for everyone. The trickle down theory of Reagan is when things changed (for the worse) which is why we are where we are today-- the country is crumbling, and the rich are getting richer. It's not a sustainable way for a successful country.

No, what we should do is fund government so it serves the MINIMUM number of functions with the LOWEST possible taxes and the LEAST amount of debt.

What we HAVE been doing in funding government so that it provides a bunch of INESSENTIAL functions (like guaranteeing loans for green energy companies. subsidizing businesses of all kinds, and providing entitlements for people who don't need all of those entitlements); with taxes that are already TOO high, and financing too much of the enormously wasteful and profligate spending with a HUMONGOUS pile of debt whose interest and principle we will have a hard time paying back, IF AT ALL.

Sorry, your view is very simplistic and superficial. If you presented those kinds of arguments to the hard nosed business people I deal with, you would be laughed out of the room.

[kerouac]

(12-09-2011 05:21 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Sorry, your view is very simplistic and superficial. If you presented those kinds of arguments to the hard nosed business people I deal with, you would be laughed out of the room.

How is my view simplistic when your remedy is to slash and burn, you dumb piece of down syndrome poop? You are either a troll, or a retard, or both. I'll bet that you're both, and then some.

Since you keep bringing this up, what line of business are you in? Ebay? Butt Plugs?

[tenderman100]

(12-09-2011 05:35 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

How is my view simplistic when your remedy is to slash and burn, you dumb piece of down syndrome poop? You are either a troll, or a retard, or both. I'll bet that you're both, and then some.

Since you keep bringing this up, what line of business are you in? Ebay? Butt Plugs?

See, here is one difference between you and me. I say your IDEAS are simplistic and that if you presented them, you would be laughed at. You, in contast, call me a "retard."

So let me ask you a question: Have you managed to make it out of middle school yet?

Meanwhile, if I think that government should cut spending, scale back on what it does that is "slash and burn?"

Finally, I am not going to tell YOU what business I'm in, or the clients I have. Suffice to say, I know business, I know businesspeople, and I know how they think. And you have yet to present any evidence that you are a thinker on their level.

[tenderman100]

Want to know why the stimulus failed? Watch this case study of Silver Springs MD. Those of you who have a hard time with

(1) cogently constructed arguments
(2) claims supported by data and evidence and
(3) comparative numerical analysis

may struggle with the ideas here. But take a run at it.

[kerouac]

(12-09-2011 05:47 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Meanwhile, if I think that government should cut spending, scale back on what it does that is "slash and burn?"

What areas of the government do you suggest be rolled back? Education? Defense? Health?

See, here's the problem with people who just blurt out "cut spending!" The problem with you lot is that instead of working in a rational manner with the other side in order to come up with solutions, or see why things aren't working the way you should, you would rather just cut, cut, cut!

When I referenced Germany earlier, it was by no means a reference to that dreaded nazi party. What I was referencing is the fact that in contemporary Germany, people like you are considered wackos and are laughed at.

You want to talk about untested, where in the world has the Libertarian ideology come to fruition and been tested?

Yet, the Social Market economy, which is what they have in the German Republic, is working out very well. We have a system that is similar to theirs, except we also have a vocal fringe that is doing whatever it can to break it apart.

You guys are the ones that have influenced the failed American Experiment (Trickle Down Theory) and have gotten us to where we are today.

it's not just the right's fault. The left has experimented with society in its own way to cause its own level of harm.

The fact of the matter is, you may throw around bullshit about knowing "hard nosed business people" but I grew up in an affluent area and have associated with affluent people for the majority of my life, and we all look at people like you as The Fringe.

Show me a few respected business people (and I'm talking fortune 500 executive) who believe in what you are attempting to espouse and then maybe we'll take you seriously, but until then you are just another wacko from bumfucksville who doesn't understand how miniscule his understanding of the American Economy and (important) business is.

Why don't you offer some ideas where America can shine in the current economic system?

What are some areas that offer hope to the American Economy?

I know some, do you?

[tenderman100]

(12-09-2011 06:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

What areas of the government are you suggesting being rolled back? Education? Defense? Health?

See, here's the problem with people who just blurt out "cut spending!" The problem with you lot is that instead of working in a rational manner with the other side in order to come up with solutions, or see why things aren't working the way you should, you would rather just cut, cut, cut!

Well, go here for starters to see where we can cut...and cut a lot.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

They get into the woods about EXACTLY what programs should be cut, and how much we would save.

The Department of Education should be completely eliminated. Go here

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/k-12...-subsidies

to see for example WHY its K-12 subsidies should be eliminated. These subsidies have done NOTHING to improve educational performance.

The Department of Commerce should be largely eliminated, except for its statistical services sections.

In sum, all departments should undergo cuts...and that includes defence.

Meanwhile, read this:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/14/th...singlepage

Thee prescription is simple -- first get the Federal Budget down to 19% of GDP. Then reform entitlements. It's another variation of the Ryan plan. Of course, we all know that the Ryan plan will push Grandma off the cliff, right? Of course we know...Nancy Pelosi has told us.

[thekid]

Obama isn't far left enough.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

Meanwhile, if boys want to be Alpha, they gotta stand being in the room with one.

HAHA ... OMG...I almost spit my drink through my nose with this one.

just. wow. Thank god for the forum rules.

Coupled with the "if I said that to the hard nosed business guys that I deal with" comment... your turning into a running joke. seriously.

And, FYI, part of the reason that I'm laying into you continuously, other then your general rudeness, is that your rhetoric is fundamentally garbage. Just so you know. You have bad rhetorical skills, on a fundamental level. Which is what I addressed before. So, saying that that you will unleash a rhetorical ass whooping, or however you put it before, is a hollow threat. You haven't demonstrated that skill as of yet.

Also, just so you know, being "alpha", on a forum, equates to making good arguments. Not talking about your "hard nosed Business associates" or hurling "weak minded" insults at people. Those are the arguments and tactics of someone who is bad at arguing. So, how, exactly, are you "alpha"? Are you a big, bad scary guy in real life?
Yea? No? Who cares. Doesn't matter here. So, the only way you gain "alpha" status here is when you are:

1. Helpful and supportive of other guys here
2. Make cogent and well supported arguments that are based in sound rhetoric and free of fallacies.
3. Are cool with people, in your communication.

So, how do you measure up?

Let's take a vote.

On the political front, as an American, if the biggest things that you are worried about are the budget and Obama, then you're not knowledgeable there either. Tick tock.

[tenderman100]

(12-09-2011 10:32 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

HAHA ... OMG...I almost spit my drink through my nose with this one.

just. wow. Thank god for the forum rules.

Coupled with the "if I said that to the hard nosed business guys that I deal with" comment... your turning into a running joke. seriously.

And, FYI, part of the reason that I'm laying into you continuously, other then your general rudeness, is that your rhetoric is fundamentally garbage. Just so you know. You have bad rhetorical skills, on a fundamental level. Which is what I addressed before. So, saying that that you will unleash a rhetorical ass whooping, or however you put it before, is a hollow threat. You haven't demonstrated that skill as of yet.

I've kicked your ass, but it is so far above you you didn't even notice.

By the way, have you watched the video above? Or is the that sort of detailed numerical analysis a challenge for you -- perhaps you were thinking that there would be no math.

(12-09-2011 10:32 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Also, just so you know, being "alpha", on a forum, equates to making good arguments. Not talking about your "hard nosed Business associates" or hurling "weak minded" insults at people. Those are the arguments and tactics of someone who is bad at arguing. So, how, exactly, are you "alpha"? Are you a big, bad scary guy in real life?
Yea? No? Who cares. Doesn't matter here. So, the only way you gain "alpha" status here is when you are:

1. Helpful and supportive of other guys here
2. Make cogent and well supported arguments that are based in sound rhetoric and free of fallacies.
3. Are cool with people, in your communication.

So, how do you measure up?

Let's take a vote.

On the political front, as an American, if the biggest things that you are worried about are the budget and Obama, then you're not knowledgeable there either. Tick tock.

Look, pal, I don't give a rat's ass what other people -- or should I say "empathetic lizard-like lefties" -- think. Politics is too fucking important to make nicey-nice. There is too much at stake, and idiots out there who have the inability to think through the implications of what we face are politically worthless.

You are perfectly welcome not to like what I say, or even insult me -- I simply do not give a shit. I know who I am, what I have accomplished, how much I know, how successful I've been, and how right I am. I don't need to prove anything to you, nor do I have any interest in proving anything to you.

Barack Obama has been a total disaster for the country. Our skyrocketing debt -- to which Republicans have contributed but which Barack Obama has set on a glide path to oblivion -- is a potential nation killer. Are there other problems out there? Hell, yes, but these two are nearly the top of any list.

So, get used to it. If I feel like it, and Roosh allows me to do it (this is his board and I respect private property above all), I will skewer all of the betatroid ideas and nothing you can say to me, or about me, will stop me from doing what I want to do.

Are we clear now?

[Mr.GM]

Obama can be the worst president, but looking from the outside I only see clowns in the Republican side.I don't see Newt nor Romney being able to beat Obama at 2012. They are too old and lack charisma.The GOP seems unable to do a better job picking candidates , just old bags like Mcain and Newt.

[Brian]

(12-09-2011 11:25 PM)Mr.GM Wrote:  

Obama can be the worst president, but looking from the outside I only see clowns in the Republican side.I don't see Newt nor Romney being able to beat Obama at 2012. They are too old and lack charisma.The GOP seems unable to do a better job picking candidates , just old bags like Mcain and Newt.

Newt is light years ahead of McCain.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(12-09-2011 01:43 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(12-09-2011 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

All government jobs are funded with debt, there's no sustainability to them

I think the correct way to put it is that all government is run on tax dollars and debt, and when taxes are low we must rely more on debt. Republicans of the past were more pro-infrastructure, and, well, keeping the Republic in tip top shape, thus fine with having a higher tax rate for everyone. The trickle down theory of Reagan is when things changed (for the worse) which is why we are where we are today-- the country is crumbling, and the rich are getting richer. It's not a sustainable way for a successful country.

You said it well. I always found it rather ironic that the modern democratic policy seems fairly similar to policies from the 50s and 60s.

[speakeasy]

(12-09-2011 05:54 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Want to know why the stimulus failed? Watch this case study of Silver Springs MD.

Who is to say that the case of Silver Springs is representative of the entire stimulus program? These funds went to communities nationwide. I obviously expect opponents(such as a Libertarian magazine) to cherry-pick the worst examples.

I also find it intriguing that amongst all this, you are/were a supporter of the Iraq War which was perhaps the most colossal waste of tax dollars in American history. It was one thing to have supported it in the days following 9/11, but to still believe it was necessary in hindsight?

[tenderman100]

(12-10-2011 02:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Who is to say that the case of Silver Springs is representative of the entire stimulus program? These funds went to communities nationwide. I obviously expect opponents(such as a Libertarian magazine) to cherry-pick the worst examples.

Of course, the video described national level results too.

But I also think that what happened there is quite representative. States played fast and loose with the money, funds went to projects that were going to be done anyway, projects were done by firms who were already reasonably busy (because the government can't take risks, you know) and new jobs turned out to be filled by people who were already employed. There have already been some qualitative survey studies done that point to this, and I know for a fact that a number of economists are doing in-depth quantitative studies. When the analysis is all complete, I bet it will be indisputable that the stimulus didn't do what it was supposed to do, and what it did actually do, it didn't do very well at all.

(12-10-2011 02:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I also find it intriguing that amongst all this, you are/were a supporter of the Iraq War which was perhaps the most colossal waste of tax dollars in American history. It was one thing to have supported it in the days following 9/11, but to still believe it was necessary in hindsight?

You know, it never amazes me how lefties like you cannot get off the hobby horses of the past. Bush was BAD. Iraq was a WASTE. I bet you were all against the "torture" of waterboarding too -- even though it was performed mostly on scumbags like Khalidd Sheik Mohammed, who sliced off the head of Daniel Pearl for purposes, among others, of making a snuff film, and also plotted how to fry 3000 people in aviation fuel. But, NOOOO...waterboarding him is TORTURE!! HORRORS!!

Here's the thing about Iraq -- lefties NEVER assume potential negative consequences had we NOT gone in. It would have all been sweetness and light and unicorns and kumbaya -- since, you know, you are the people you have been waiting for, right??

Nah, those realistic thought experiments seem to beyond their thinking capabilities. So, think about this: we don't go in, Saddam stays in power, sanctions come off, oil goes to $100 a barrel, he reaps a windfall, he reconstitutes his WMD program (which he would have done -- read the Duelfer report) and, in a effort to keep pace with Iran, works to get nuclear weapons, further destabilizing the region. Meanwhile, he continues to viciously oppress 20 million Iraqis, keeping open REAL torture chambers, as the Arab spring comes nowhere near to deposing him (think Syria now: Assad is going nowhere). And his sons -- who vicious sadistic streaks make Papa seem like a sentimentalist -- exert more and more influence.

But nooooo....can't imagine that!! Because the USA going into Iraq and allowing 20 million people to actually taste the freedom of a constitutional republic -- well who gives a shit about that? Bush lied, thousands died.

Of course, the irony is that lefties think they are so englightened, so nuanced, that when faced with REAL nuance, they are tongue tied.

[Brian]

its much harder to second guess things like War's because the intelligence that the decisions are confidential and only available to very high level people. thats why its easy to say we should have left but when the Generals on the ground are saying we should its hard to argue w/people who have forgotten more then we'll ever know.

[misterstir]

(11-29-2011 01:23 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Why is Obama going to go down as one of the worst presidents in our country’s history?

Simple. He is an incompetent lazy hypocritical petulant charlatan.

That’s right, Obama is a charlatan, with neither the temperament, attitude, or intellect -- yes, I said intellect -- to be president. Because in the end, Obama is simply not that bright.

I don't know about you, but when he got up and said "we are the[/b] ones we've been waiting for" and "this is the day the planet began to heal" my bullshit meter was redlining. Or when he says during the BP fiasco, "we won't rest until..." -- gimme a break. Astonishingly pretentious because, you know, we won't be resting because we will be playing a lot of golf. Or raising a lot of campaign money. If the speechifying isn't pompous, or arrogant, it's exploring new depths of banality and demagoguery. And the quantity of speechifying! For a while there he was on TV giving an address or news conference more often than Seinfeld reruns.

Meanwhile, he's supposed to be this intellectual giant, compared to Chimpy Bush McHitler, but then winds up shooting his mouth off about the Cambridge police and the cost of diabetic amputations without having any facts at hand, among other examples too numerous to mention. He lies about his mother not getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

Then there are his rhetorical gaffes -- 57 states, the constitution was written 20 centuries ago, “corpseman” Austrians speak Austrian -- that pass by unnoticed by the fawning media but would be front page news if uttered by Dubya or, the media’s favorite whipping girl, Sarah Palin, or the favorite whipping boys, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. Of course, even when the teleprompter provides him fully formed sentences, virtually
everything Obama says has a "sell-by" date -- Guantanamo, status of Jerusalem, the ground zero mosque, health care negotiations on CSPAN, shovel ready projects, -- you name it, he'll take one side, and then the other, or ignore what he promised, and then give us the "HOPE" upturned look, pretending that he's actually thinking.

Of course, the apologists put it down to other qualities -- too aloof, too technocratic, too businesslike -- matters of style, not substance. Of course, that's what OBAMA thinks too - in his delusion or pretense (I'm not sure which is worse) the "shellacking" he and his party got in the 2010 mid-term election was all about not getting the message out well enough. Of course, that's total drek. The Democrats got their asses handed to them because (1) they spent too much money -- the stimulus was about as effective as dropping $100 bills randomly out of airplanes -- and (2) they rammed through a 2700 page baroque health care bill whose intended and unintended consequences have yet to unfold but which reflect a kind of governmental intervention that the American electorate is, with some justification, suspicious of.

Top that off by the fact that people are waking up to the horror that state and local governments have spun out of financial control -- largely under the reign of Democrats -- and for Democrats, you've got a 3-part formula for being summarily shown the exit door, and told not to let it hit them on the way out.

You know, sometimes, in my most cynical moments, I think folks are swayed because Obama looks good in a suit -- see the covers of Rolling Stone -- especially when he does that swagger walk. 40 long is my guess. If nothing else, he has a future career as a Ralph Lauren model, which may come sooner that he wants. It's the "glamour."

But when you cut through it all, Obama has revealed himself: he's a narcissistic petulant hypocrite ("They talk about me like I am a dog.") And then there's the pettiness -- it's like there's nothing else out there that rivals the menace of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the state of Arizona and its immigration policies -- or that most insidious of organizations, the US Chamber of Commerce(!!). Holy crap. Attacking the Supreme Court during the state of the union while they have to sit there, stone faced. It brings new meaning to the word “crass.”

His policy and management mistakes are taking on epic proportions. He outsourced his legislative agenda to the Assistant Vice Principal Harry Reid and the frozen-faced Speaker Pelosi ("We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" “The health care bill will create 400,000 jobs)...if both of them had IQs any lower we'd have to water them twice a day. And then we get Cash for Clunkers, bailing out GM with money the taxpayer will never see...rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

And virtually every senior person he has put into his administration has been a joke; (the only decent one, Gates, was a Bush leftover, and now his competent replacement, Panetta, is making noises about resigning). Salazar on the oil spill; Holder, he of the deaths from Fast and Furious, and who makes Alberto Gonzales look competent; Romer promising an amazingly unrealistic unemployment rate; Geithner the tax cheat and Goldman lackey; Napolitano and the TSA and the airport hand groping fiasco; Chu the nobel prize winner who should be getting the economic BOOBY prize for flushing a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money down the Solyndra toilet….and on and on and on. His chief space guy thinks his main mission is outreach to the Islamic world. Really, it's fucking endless.

His foreign trips have been humiliating embarrassments: running around the Copenhagen conference, trying to broker a meaningless climate deal, while everyone avoids him; pitching Chicago for the Olympics and getting voted off the island in the first round; in the Far East, selling stimulus when no one's buying and failing to get a trade agreement that should have been signed and sealed before he left the country. Bowing to foreign leaders. Raising his hand in the middle of a group picture of world leaders. Idiotic.

Bottom line? Incompetence and embarrassment run wild in the clusterfuck that is the Obama administration.

God I hope there’s change coming. Frankly, a Pentecostal snake charmer would be an improvement over this guy.

Worst president... I don't like Obama, he is really bad, but worst... worst than Bush, no way. But hardly better.

Actually, no I change my mind, Obama is the WORST president ever, because if he had an ounce of dignity, he'd lock up Bush, Blair and Sarkozy, throw them all in prison, bomb, britain and france so that we could take them over and destroy all their industry and then people would be forced to buy American again. I agree absolute worst president.

Obama talks big but does nothing useful, his entire administration is full of corrupt rich goldman sachs bankers. It is clear Obama is a puppet. He had 2 years to give me free healthcare, free car, high paying job, help all his people like the blacks, the young, the poor whites and middle class non racist whites, the browns, who believed him and he stabbed us in the back. John "don" corzine steals 2.2 billion dollars and the senate ask him how are you going to clean this up. Not where did you put the billions. Its like murdering someone and the police say how are we going to clean this up.

Yeah you liberals wanted guantanmo closed, and you got it expaneded, you wanted the wars in iraq and afghanistan to end, well now you have them in somalia, yemen, libya, pakistan, Uganda and soon syria, iran and china.

You thought Obama was going to give you a bigger welfare check and buy you a car, and makesure you all have jobs, and make you keep your union job, well now there ain't no jobs for nobody. You think Obama is going to give you free healthcare, you aren't going to get shit.

,My disagreement with the OP is he is overly focusing on his minor faux pas and not that he is a corrupt globalist eugenicist. Just do go off thinking that George Bush or Hermain Cain or Rick Perry or Romney or any of those candidates except Ron Paul is going to solve any of your problems because they are all the same shit. They are all about oppressing Americans and enriching themselves.

[All or Nothing]

(12-10-2011 04:41 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-10-2011 02:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I also find it intriguing that amongst all this, you are/were a supporter of the Iraq War which was perhaps the most colossal waste of tax dollars in American history. It was one thing to have supported it in the days following 9/11, but to still believe it was necessary in hindsight?

You know, it never amazes me how lefties like you cannot get off the hobby horses of the past. Bush was BAD. Iraq was a WASTE. I bet you were all against the "torture" of waterboarding too -- even though it was performed mostly on scumbags like Khalidd Sheik Mohammed, who sliced off the head of Daniel Pearl for purposes, among others, of making a snuff film, and also plotted how to fry 3000 people in aviation fuel. But, NOOOO...waterboarding him is TORTURE!! HORRORS!!

Here's the thing about Iraq -- lefties NEVER assume potential negative consequences had we NOT gone in. It would have all been sweetness and light and unicorns and kumbaya -- since, you know, you are the people you have been waiting for, right??

Nah, those realistic thought experiments seem to beyond their thinking capabilities. So, think about this: we don't go in, Saddam stays in power, sanctions come off, oil goes to $100 a barrel, he reaps a windfall, he reconstitutes his WMD program (which he would have done -- read the Duelfer report) and, in a effort to keep pace with Iran, works to get nuclear weapons, further destabilizing the region. Meanwhile, he continues to viciously oppress 20 million Iraqis, keeping open REAL torture chambers, as the Arab spring comes nowhere near to deposing him (think Syria now: Assad is going nowhere). And his sons -- who vicious sadistic streaks make Papa seem like a sentimentalist -- exert more and more influence.

But nooooo....can't imagine that!! Because the USA going into Iraq and allowing 20 million people to actually taste the freedom of a constitutional republic -- well who gives a shit about that? Bush lied, thousands died.

Of course, the irony is that lefties think they are so englightened, so nuanced, that when faced with REAL nuance, they are tongue tied.

Iraq and the whole Middle East presents ZERO threat to the United States. Do you honestly think they can effectively hurt the U.S. Our country spends trillions upon trillions of dollars funding the latest research in defense. This country is light years ahead of the curb when it comes to military defense and you think a group of countries that exist in the arid desert who's only source of revenue is oil will present a threat to this country? That is a laughable assertion at the very least. Even if they had nuclear weapons, they have no effective way to launch them and have them actually reach the United States. Our country has a combination of military satellites and defense measures that aren't even know to the public that I am absolutely certain could dispatch the nuclear weapons with ease.

The only good I see from going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq is to suckle those countries of their oil. All I know, is that if this country is going to spend years at war in an arid desert to "fight terrorism" and "bring Democracy" we better be getting what we really want out of the deal, which is hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil. Even my buddy, who recently finished his first three month stint in boot camp for the Marines knows the deal. We were talking about the war and he told me about what his superiors thought of the war in Afghanistan. Essentially the superiors were pissed off that they were going into this country under the moniker of "Democracy" even when the real reason the U.S. was going in was to open the door for the American oil industry to set up shop. They essentially said, "I don't know why we are taking this slow approach to attacking these countries when we could just go in, kill the enemies and easily open the doors for the oil industry to come in."

So the whole idea that Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is a threat to us is a LIE and if you believe that, you are a FOOL. Shit, if our government actually cared about democracy being brought to the Middle East, we would have helped out Iran, when they were BEGGING the Western world to help them put in the president they actually voted in the office. What did the Western world do when Iran was begging for help to bring true democracy to their country? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. This whole "Middle East is a threat" and "We're bringing democracy to them" is a sham.

[tenderman100]

(12-10-2011 05:44 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Iraq and the whole Middle East presents ZERO threat to the United States.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/iran-and-the-emp-threat/

Quote:

he first thing they will notice is there is no power. Another damn power outage, they will grumble — but then again, there has been no storm. Confused, some will try to call for information, but the phones will be down. The TV, the radio — nothing, no reception.

The panic will come when cars won’t start.

The traffic lights will be out, too. It will get much worse. Most will not survive to see life get back to normal in America.

Thousands will be stranded on subways, and over a million passengers who fly daily across the continent will be stuck at airports with flights canceled. Those already in the air will meet a deadly fate as planes plunge from the sky, their electronics fried.

Within the next few days, water supplies will run out: water-pumping stations will grind to a halt and electric pumps for water purification will also stop. Remaining water supplies will soon become contaminated.

Next is the food supply. Without power, food plants can no longer operate, and without transportation, food inventories in warehouses rot. Many cities will run out of food in just three days, others in just a bit longer.

This will be the result of an electromagnetic pulse attack over the atmosphere of the United States. In less than a billionth of a second, the electrical intensity on Earth becomes so hot that microchips fry, power lines overload, and the electrical grid collapses. Everything with microelectronics in it fails.

Within days, tens of millions of Americans will need to leave their homes looking for water and food. Within five to 10 days, due to water pollution and sanitation issues, many will fall ill — people across America will face starvation, disease, and death. In just one year after the attack, up to two-thirds of the American population will cease to exist.

Our enemies know this. The radicals ruling Iran have openly talked about it as they have called for the destruction of America and a new world order that excludes America.

[All or Nothing]

(12-10-2011 06:59 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-10-2011 05:44 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Iraq and the whole Middle East presents ZERO threat to the United States.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/iran-and-the-emp-threat/

Do you honestly believe that an EMP blast could threaten the United States? Do you honestly believe that? Again, the U.S. spends trillions, I repeat TRILLIONS of dollars on developing military technology. According to this Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...enditures, the U.S. spent 678,105,000,000 dollars on defense and military. Let's compare that to Iran's expenditures, 7,044,000,000. By comparison, Iran spends less than 2.5% of what we do on its military. I can assure you that most of this spending goes towards innovation and weapons because my friend knows first hand that the soldiers get paid little more than a pittance.

You are a fool. Iran is like an ant compared to the U.S. The only threat it presents is a small bite on the foot that can only be remembered if it is scratched at. You believe an EMP missile presents a threat and I say it'll be little more than a temporary power outage, IF that. Most likely the missile will be defused mid-air, ironically through the use of internet communications, or shot down somewhere over the ocean.

Its amazing how people are so afraid of a group of countries that are altogether incredibly WEAK and highly reliant upon money from the U.S. to survive.

[Mr.GM]

(12-10-2011 12:17 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(12-09-2011 11:25 PM)Mr.GM Wrote:  

Obama can be the worst president, but looking from the outside I only see clowns in the Republican side.I don't see Newt nor Romney being able to beat Obama at 2012. They are too old and lack charisma.The GOP seems unable to do a better job picking candidates , just old bags like Mcain and Newt.

Newt is light years ahead of McCain.

Do you believe that Newt will be able to grab the independent voters in the major election against Obama?

For me he looks like a candidate who could have been good 10yrs ago,but 2012 seems too late for him

[tenderman100]

(12-10-2011 07:33 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Do you honestly believe that an EMP blast could threaten the United States? Do you honestly believe that?

You are a fool. Iran is like an ant compared to the U.S. The only threat it presents is a small bite on the foot that can only be remembered if it is scratched at. You believe an EMP missile presents a threat and I say it'll be little more than a temporary power outage, IF that. Most likely the missile will be defused mid-air, ironically through the use of internet communications, or shot down somewhere over the ocean.

Iran IS an ant. But one EMP blast will devastate this country. Prove to me otherwise...give me sources that say it will NOT happen...ever.

The terrorist only needs to succeed once.

[speakeasy]

(12-10-2011 04:41 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-10-2011 02:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Who is to say that the case of Silver Springs is representative of the entire stimulus program? These funds went to communities nationwide. I obviously expect opponents(such as a Libertarian magazine) to cherry-pick the worst examples.

Of course, the video described national level results too.

But I also think that what happened there is quite representative. States played fast and loose with the money, funds went to projects that were going to be done anyway, projects were done by firms who were already reasonably busy (because the government can't take risks, you know) and new jobs turned out to be filled by people who were already employed. There have already been some qualitative survey studies done that point to this, and I know for a fact that a number of economists are doing in-depth quantitative studies. When the analysis is all complete, I bet it will be indisputable that the stimulus didn't do what it was supposed to do, and what it did actually do, it didn't do very well at all.

(12-10-2011 02:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I also find it intriguing that amongst all this, you are/were a supporter of the Iraq War which was perhaps the most colossal waste of tax dollars in American history. It was one thing to have supported it in the days following 9/11, but to still believe it was necessary in hindsight?

You know, it never amazes me how lefties like you cannot get off the hobby horses of the past. Bush was BAD. Iraq was a WASTE. I bet you were all against the "torture" of waterboarding too -- even though it was performed mostly on scumbags like Khalidd Sheik Mohammed, who sliced off the head of Daniel Pearl for purposes, among others, of making a snuff film, and also plotted how to fry 3000 people in aviation fuel. But, NOOOO...waterboarding him is TORTURE!! HORRORS!!

Here's the thing about Iraq -- lefties NEVER assume potential negative consequences had we NOT gone in. It would have all been sweetness and light and unicorns and kumbaya -- since, you know, you are the people you have been waiting for, right??

Nah, those realistic thought experiments seem to beyond their thinking capabilities. So, think about this: we don't go in, Saddam stays in power, sanctions come off, oil goes to $100 a barrel, he reaps a windfall, he reconstitutes his WMD program (which he would have done -- read the Duelfer report) and, in a effort to keep pace with Iran, works to get nuclear weapons, further destabilizing the region. Meanwhile, he continues to viciously oppress 20 million Iraqis, keeping open REAL torture chambers, as the Arab spring comes nowhere near to deposing him (think Syria now: Assad is going nowhere). And his sons -- who vicious sadistic streaks make Papa seem like a sentimentalist -- exert more and more influence.

But nooooo....can't imagine that!! Because the USA going into Iraq and allowing 20 million people to actually taste the freedom of a constitutional republic -- well who gives a shit about that? Bush lied, thousands died.

Of course, the irony is that lefties think they are so englightened, so nuanced, that when faced with REAL nuance, they are tongue tied.

Apparently, you skipped over bolded part up above and launched into autopilot mode against "leftist", something I don't even identify myself as.

As I stated above, it was understandable to me that people supported it in the days following 9/11. But STILL defending it even with the 20/20 clarity of hindsight shows me that all your crap about wasteful government spending is bullshit.