Originally posted by whodeyI don't really know what to make of your incessantly facetious answers. You raised the issue of 'the safety net & the abyss' but then didn't to want to talk about it in a joined up way. Then there's the issue of 'balanced budget v uncontrollable military spending' and, again, just a kind of balsa wood retort.
I think the goal is to spend as much as you like and not worry about paying it back because you have the biggest military in the world.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI think there is some merit in your safety net position, but I simply think the cons outweigh the pro's. That is what I was trying to present. Anyhew, it matters little what I think because someone who thinks as you do is in charge of this asylum. Congrats!!
I don't really know what to make of your incessantly facetious answers. You raised the issue of 'the safety net & the abyss' but then didn't to want to talk about it in a joined up way. Then there's the issue of 'balanced budget v uncontrollable military spending' and, again, just a kind of balsa wood retort.
As for military spending, I agree, that needs to be curtailed as well. I mean, we have nukes, if you mess wiith us you die. How much more do we need?
Originally posted by whodeyon a serious note,do you really think we would use nukes?
I think there is some merit in your safety net position, but I simply think the cons outweigh the pro's. That is what I was trying to present. Anyhew, it matters little what I think because someone who thinks as you do is in charge of this asylum. Congrats!!
As for military spending, I agree, that needs to be curtailed as well. I mean, we have nukes, if you mess wiith us you die. How much more do we need?
Originally posted by whodeythe reason i ask this is because i was having this same discussion yesterday. I doubt the current administration would use them.For instance,N.Korea lobs a missile into Alaska. I cant see Obama doing anymore than "strongly condemming" that action. Writing a stern letter,crying to the U.N. etc.
Depends on the situation. It is like asking if you would shoot somebody. Chances are you really don't want to, but if you felt forced into doing it you would.
What say you?
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhoa Whoa Whoa
the reason i ask this is because i was having this same discussion yesterday. I doubt the current administration would use them.For instance,N.Korea lobs a missile into Alaska. I cant see Obama doing anymore than "strongly condemming" that action. Writing a stern letter,crying to the U.N. etc.
What say you?
Let's relax here. Obama may not be the most militant guy in the World. But if a foreign government attacks US soil, he's going to do a lot more than whining to the UN. Maybe you don't remember the days after 9/11 and you certainly don't remember the days after Pearl Harbor. But when the US is attacked, public support for a military response is close to 100%.
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonIf North Korea lobbed a missil onto US soil I don't see any other alternative but to respond accordingly. What, are we going to wait around for another one to land? Personally, I don't see him being all that aggrtessive militarily, however, I think he would respond accordingly. Just don't forget the American response to 911. Three buildings were attacked and the response was to take out two countries. Americans would demand a response and I think it may even be the same day.
the reason i ask this is because i was having this same discussion yesterday. I doubt the current administration would use them.For instance,N.Korea lobs a missile into Alaska. I cant see Obama doing anymore than "strongly condemming" that action. Writing a stern letter,crying to the U.N. etc.
What say you?
Originally posted by sh76This is in response to you and whodey both. I would like to think he would do the right thing,but i dont know about him. The big fear I have is "them" thinking the way I am. 9/11 and pearl harbor were differnt admins as well. G.W. sucked in alot of areas but, he wasnt taking any crap either. The world found that out real quick. These dictators and rogue nations look for signs of weakness. The cuban missile crisis was another young inexperienced charismatic president that was viewed at first, as weak by Krushev.The entire world nearly got wasted over that one. In the end kennedy would not back down and it all worked out.It looks like N.Korea is testing Obama now because they dont respect him.I hope he is cut from the same cloth as JFK if the s#*t hits the fan.
Whoa Whoa Whoa
Let's relax here. Obama may not be the most militant guy in the World. But if a foreign government attacks US soil, he's going to do a lot more than whining to the UN. Maybe you don't remember the days after 9/11 and you certainly don't remember the days after Pearl Harbor. But when the US is attacked, public support for a military response is close to 100%.
Originally posted by utherpendragonRupert Murdoch approves.
the reason i ask this is because i was having this same discussion yesterday. I doubt the current administration would use them.For instance,N.Korea lobs a missile into Alaska. I cant see Obama doing anymore than "strongly condemming" that action. Writing a stern letter,crying to the U.N. etc.
What say you?
Originally posted by utherpendragonTypical right wing drivel.
This is in response to you and whodey both. I would like to think he would do the right thing,but i dont know about him. The big fear I have is "them" thinking the way I am. 9/11 and pearl harbor were differnt admins as well. G.W. sucked in alot of areas but, he wasnt taking any crap either. The world found that out real quick. These dictators and rog ...[text shortened]... se they dont respect him.I hope he is cut from the same cloth as JFK if the s#*t hits the fan.
Originally posted by sh76It can be judged, but it takes a little more time than a few months.
Possibilities are always infinite. But how else would you judge how well a program works other than comparing the situation after the program to before the program?
I'm not ready to pass judgment on the stimulus package quite yet... I'm willing to give it some more time.
But, by your standards, the success or lack thereof of any economic policy can never be judged.
4 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonIts hard to tell what North Koreas objectives are. For example, are they simply using these weapons to gain attention and negotiation for concessions and benefits or are they interested in selling these weapons to other rogue nations or is the leader simply insane and desires to use them on the US? If they did use them on the US, I don't see what advantage that would give them. I mean, do they have plans for expansion in the region and beyond? If so, that would prove to be awefully problematic with Red China as a next door neighbor.
This is in response to you and whodey both. I would like to think he would do the right thing,but i dont know about him. The big fear I have is "them" thinking the way I am. 9/11 and pearl harbor were differnt admins as well. G.W. sucked in alot of areas but, he wasnt taking any crap either. The world found that out real quick. These dictators and rog ...[text shortened]... se they dont respect him.I hope he is cut from the same cloth as JFK if the s#*t hits the fan.
As for showing weakness, I hear what you are saying. An example, is the response the Arab world had to "W" after invading Iraq and Afganistan. Setting aside whether it was the "right" thing to do, I think the Arab world gained some respect for him in that they became somewhat fearful of him. I really think that Saddam and company really had no idea "W" was capable of that. In fact, I think they continue to be somewhat fearful of future US response to aggression despite having Obama at the helm currently.
