Any Obama supporters? Lets talk about CHANGE.

[Nate K]

explain the logic? you want to vote for someone that doesnt even care about the defense of this country? hope you know arabic is a hard language to learn, you might want to get started now if you want obama in office. he will turn this country over to his roots

the logic is people don't want to put money in a war that doesn't seem to be accomplishing nething.

 

[CORUM]

see that makes sense. but if you have never been there you do not know what is being accomplished. but im done defending the military it has been around for over 200 years. and the military will continue to be around long after that liberal idiot obama. but cutting the military funding is not going to help anything. besides anyone who supports cutting the military needs to go see what it is all about and see how hard it is for them and their famlies to begin with. i just think it is easy for people to pass judgment from the comfort of their home including obama!!

 

[danzik17]

Corum, you need to realize something; most people are referring to this retarded war and the stupid amount of bases we have when we say cut back on the military. I would be in favor of doing that, then taking part of the saved money and DOUBLING the amount currently allocated to veteran's benefits. We would still see net savings of like 700 billion dollars even after doubling those funds.

 

[clemson357]

Well, you need to find some support for that claim. Income tax is not the only source of revenue for the federal government, nor is it the sole source of revenue for the state and local governments. You buy a loaf of bread, you pay a tax. You buy a gallon of gas, you pay several taxes. You have a telephone, you pay several taxes. You go to public school and the government provides funding for that school to continue to exist. Your tuition and fees don't cover much. You don't seem to mind government handouts when they benefit you. . .and no one told you that you had to go to college, did they?

Are you retarded? You quote what I said and then ask me to provide "support," which is clearly provided in what you just quoted. More than a third of people in this country pay no income tax, its a fact, look it up. Then you tell me about sales tax as if it wasn't explicitly stated in what I just said.

The entirety of what I said was directed at this: the nickels and dimes collected through sales tax and gas taxes are negligible compared to the tens of thousands of dollars paid by individuals in the top 5% in property taxes and income taxes. As far as individuals go, income tax and property tax are the two biggest hits; someone who pays neither is not putting money toward my education, or anything else for that matter, because they aren't even paying enough to cover the benefits they are receiving.

In 2008 someone making $100K paid almost $22k in income taxes alone. They also paid property, sales tax, gas tax, phone tax, and every other thing you want to throw into the pot. Are you REALLY going to assert that someone making $30k, paying no income or property tax, contributed a comparable or even appreciable amount?!? Its a fucking ridiculous argument. They would have to spend their entire annual income at a sales tax rate of 73%.

Funny how my tens of thousands of dollars in tuition "don't cover much," but I should fall on my hands and knees thanking every bum who pays no income tax and no property tax for a minuscule 5% tax on a fucking loaf of bread.

 

[Big Smoothy]

you were talking about cutting the military, and how their such a waste...... then go and learn first hand what it takes. i was with guys that were putting their lives on the line to come back and go on food stamps because little fuckers liek you think funding needs to be cut back.

I think the returned troops are treated badly and this is wrong. I also am close friends with several former vets who have PTSD. They need support, and the government and VA treat them like crap. So, I agree with you on this.

Cutting the military was what Dwight D. Eisenhower talked about while President, and he was a former General. He knew about the waste, mismanagement, corruption, and constant request for more money to spend. Ike wrote about this a lot - and this was in the 1950s. Just look at how worse this is, today. The MIC - military-industrial complex.

i think if you dont have the balls to defend this country you should have NO say so in anything!!!

If the USA is attacked I'll defend my country. But I will not go to foreign countries, where I don't know much about the language, history, and culture and overthrow foreign governments in the economic interests of the elites of this country.

Google: Operation Ajax.

I at least give mccain the respect of going to veitnam and fighting. he was even a POW!!

Have you ever been to Vietnam? Do you speak Vietnamese? Have you read the 1,000 year history of Vietnam? Did you support Ngo Dinh Diem? Nguyen Khanh? Nguyen Van Thieu?

Please explain.

 

[CORUM]

ok big smoothy i will explain, no i have not been to veitnam, BUT a huge BUT for my erea i have been to Iraq, and yes i learned the language, and yes i learned the history. i went to iraq with a back injury that put me out of the army, i went when they were trying to leave me back, and i didnt go over there and pussy foot around with the back injury i was still kicking in doors and WALKING the 12 hr patrols with 80 pounds of extra shit when it was 140. then i got blown up shot and all that other stuff that brought me home that little purple ribbon. so dont question me about what i know from the military. and so you know someone with PTSD well i live with it.

and you will defend the us when it is attacked, where were you after 9/11? did you sit in did you sit in your comfy living room watching CNN? or did you get your ass to afganistan? you said you would defend this country if it was attacked, NEWS FLASH we were!!!! i guess everyone truly has forgotten, and i thought that was some dumb ass country song!!! when you truly do something to make a difference let me know, until then i think your another guy sitting around talking about what he would do instead of doing it, actions speak way louder than words!!

and danzick your making some sense. i understand what your saying but i will give you a tactical scenerio.. you pull out tens of thousands of troops to cut back, what happens to the ones left?? they will be over ran, because they do not have support around. in a crime city what is most likely to happen more crime when there is less cops or more cops less likely the crime?? make sense? you have to have large numbers, most americans that have not been do not understand how it is going to work, yeah we can pull alot of them out but what about the ones you leave behind? they are going to have to be spread out around that country and there will not be nearly enough to truly do anything. plus iran is rigth next door, they do not like us being there, then there is syria. now you pull out large numbers what is keeping them from coming over in the masses and taking iraq? there is alot more to look at than just pull them out. it sounds good, but it is a tactical mistake. here big smoothy google: mogadishu(sp) oct 3 1993 that is what will happen on a larger scale if they are not prepared. i am just saying alot of people are making up "changes" and what sounds good on paper that will not work. yes generals have spoken about down sizing before. do you think bush makes his decisions alone??? hell no he has a shit load of generals advising him. and obama talks a great game for some one that has NO FUCKING CLUE!!!! and his generals will also advise him, and the military position will not change until the job is done.

both of you made some valid points, but i do not think they were well thought out. i dont think you looked at the complete picture. all that change looks good on paper and sounds good when someone says it, but it will never happen!!! its a publicity act to get him elected, he will get in office and then people will ask where is the change? and he will not be able to deliver. also remember the president really doesnt run shit, CONGRESS does. he can not do anything with out their approval and vice versa!!

 

[Big Smoothy]

so dont question me about what i know from the military. and so you know someone with PTSD well i live with it.

I wish you the best, and the US gov better do right by you.

and you will defend the us when it is attacked, where were you after 9/11? did you sit in did you sit in your comfy living room watching CNN? or did you get your ass to afganistan? you said you would defend this country if it was attacked, NEWS FLASH we were!!!!

I was in Eastern Europe when 9/11 was attacked. The US did not need me in Afghanistan, as there were enough US military forces. The US government halted the Afghanistan offensive, primarily by Special Ops (special forces) because the US Neo-Cons do not want to find Osama Bin Laden, IMO. It's better for the Neo-Cons to have Osama Bin Laden out there, because he can "hurt us."

The 9/11 attacks were not military operations but an attack by an organization of individuals.

big smoothy google: mogadishu(sp) oct 3 1993 that is what will happen on a larger scale if they are not prepared.

I read the book and found it interesting.


The US created another Mogadishu in removing the Baath party.

 

[danzik17]

and danzick your making some sense. i understand what your saying but i will give you a tactical scenerio.. you pull out tens of thousands of troops to cut back, what happens to the ones left?? they will be over ran, because they do not have support around. in a crime city what is most likely to happen more crime when there is less cops or more cops less likely the crime?? make sense? you have to have large numbers, most americans that have not been do not understand how it is going to work, yeah we can pull alot of them out but what about the ones you leave behind? they are going to have to be spread out around that country and there will not be nearly enough to truly do anything. plus iran is rigth next door, they do not like us being there, then there is syria. now you pull out large numbers what is keeping them from coming over in the masses and taking iraq? there is alot more to look at than just pull them out. it sounds good, but it is a tactical mistake.

I'm not saying to pull some of them out, I am saying to pull all of them out. We don't need to be there, plain and simple. No matter what we do that country is going to degenerate into a civil war, there is no purpose in wasting American lives and money to delay the inevitable.

We also do not need to be maintaining our bases in places like Germany, Poland, etc. that pose no threat to the United States whatsoever. That is a huge waste of money that could either be given back to us in the form of reduced taxes, or at the very minimum spent on upgrading the failing infrastructure in our own country.

Furthermore, we simply can't even afford to continue the path that we are on. There are many historical examples of countries losing their prestige by bankrupting themselves. France and England are both examples of this. By far the most prominent example is the Roman Empire which collapsed under the financial pressures of trying to maintain their empire.

Think about that. It was not a terrorist attack or a foreign invader that brought down one of the greatest empires in history, it was the politicians' inability to control their spending. Sound familiar?

 

[ZECH]

I'm not saying to pull some of them out, I am saying to pull all of them out. We don't need to be there, plain and simple. No matter what we do that country is going to degenerate into a civil war, there is no purpose in wasting American lives and money to delay the inevitable.

We also do not need to be maintaining our bases in places like Germany, Poland, etc. that pose no threat to the United States whatsoever. That is a huge waste of money that could either be given back to us in the form of reduced taxes, or at the very minimum spent on upgrading the failing infrastructure in our own country.

Furthermore, we simply can't even afford to continue the path that we are on. There are many historical examples of countries losing their prestige by bankrupting themselves. France and England are both examples of this. By far the most prominent example is the Roman Empire which collapsed under the financial pressures of trying to maintain their empire.

Think about that. It was not a terrorist attack or a foreign invader that brought down one of the greatest empires in history, it was the politicians' inability to control their spending. Sound familiar?

You really don't understand.........I don't think we belong there either.....but we have to be there. We are there not only for our stabilty interests, but for the stabilty of the entire world. If we leave and terrosists take over Iraq, who's next. The whole middle east? What happens then? Oil stops flowing. What happens then? Economies of the world start to collapse. What happens then? Our lifestyle and of other countries will cease to exist as we know it. Does this start to make sense? No one else in the world is capable of keeping this area of the world stable. So we must do it alone if we have to.

 

[danzik17]

You really don't understand.........I don't think we belong there either.....but we have to be there. We are there not only for our stabilty interests, but for the stabilty of the entire world. If we leave and terrosists take over Iraq, who's next. The whole middle east? What happens then? Oil stops flowing. What happens then? Economies of the world start to collapse. What happens then? Our lifestyle and of other countries will cease to exist as we know it. Does this start to make sense? No one else in the world is capable of keeping this area of the world stable. So we must do it alone if we have to.

It really depends on your outlook. There are a lot of "ifs" there. I feel that "if" some of those possibilities came to fruition, then the UN would vote to take action and we would not have the United States fronting the full burden.

As for what will happen when the oil stops flowing I agree, we can't operate as we have. That said, I feel that our economy is operating on an outdated business model for transportation that has not kept up with modern technology. We should have been pushing for alternative energy long ago, especially after the oil scare of the 1970's. Personally, I predict the return of the blimp (not hydrogen of course ) in order to keep air travel going. I also predict that we will be building new nuclear energy plants to facilitate the creation of hydrogen for use in fuel cells.

Overall, I do understand what you are saying, I really do. A lot of that is a doom and gloom outlook though that isn't backed up by a lot of facts. I'm more concerned about the examples of empires falling that history provides. As I said before, Rome collapsed due to financial issues, not due to foreign invasion. We are seeing serious financial issues in the United States, and we cannot realistically maintain our empire without risking the future of our entire country, not just our economy.

 

[ZECH]

Overall, I do understand what you are saying, I really do. A lot of that is a doom and gloom outlook though that isn't backed up by a lot of facts. I'm more concerned about the examples of empires falling that history provides. As I said before, Rome collapsed due to financial issues, not due to foreign invasion. We are seeing serious financial issues in the United States, and we cannot realistically maintain our empire without risking the future of our entire country, not just our economy.

Yes it is doom and gloom but it is very possible. Here is something interesting...Report: IEA set to cut oil-supply forecast - MarketWatch
(IEA will report soon that future crude supplies could be far tighter than previously thought.
So does that show any reason why we need to be there for stability?
Also, getting back to the original question, here is something neat.....From humanevents.com

In many speeches (and on his official campaign website) Obama has announced that he would remove all American combat troops from Iraq within sixteen months of his inauguration. He would establish no permanent bases there and leave only enough troops to protect our embassy and diplomats. And, we must infer, he would do so without extracting any concessions from Iraq’s neighbors -- Iran and Syria -- to end their direct intervention in Iraq.

Obama has never explained what would come next in Iraq. Necessarily Iran, Syria and their terrorist proxies would have free rein there while Obama sought to end the threat of terrorism and solve the problems of the Middle East by personal diplomacy.

Thus, Obama has already offered Iraq to Iran without getting anything in return. And he has promised to engage in diplomacy with Iran, personally meeting with Iranian leaders without precondition.



I think this is further proof we need to be there weather we like it or not.
And oh yeah, where is the UN?????? Fuck em!

 

[CORUM]

big smoothy i know what special ops is! lol and i understand what your saying. i also know for a fact that bin laden was close to being captured but they did not want to listen to the advice of special ops, and sent in too large of an element and he knew they were coming so they walked into an ambush. i know all about that. but to tie this all in to obama, i dont think he really cares either. he does not want to find anyone, he wants to stop all the conflicts. i really do not see him persuing any type of military action. if he wants to cut military funding, then they will hit the military's pay and benefits. that is where the deductions will come from. they have a hard time keeping anyone in the military now. what is going to happen when the bonus' are cut back and benefits and things like that? there is no way they will pull everyone out of anywhere. they will make cuts in other places and it will fuck the military.

and i talked to delta guys that were in mogadishu and they hate the book and refuse to watch the movie. they say they tried to make the rangers look better. when the rangers are the reason it went to shit.

and danzick, i know what your saying, but people need to realize it will NEVER be able to happen. if we pull out syria and iran will take iraq and then we will be really fucked!!! we have to make it to where iraq can stand on its own, before we do anything. if obama listened to the military advisors and actually went over there he would know these things. but he has his head up his ass worried about what people are saying about him and his wife. look at bush, he knows everyone talks shit. he just lets it roll off his shoulders. obama is TOO SENSATIVE to be president. HE IS WEAK!!!

once again you both make very good points, and we agree to an extent!! but somethings cant happen to quickly, and people are going to have to understand that. rash decisions are going to hurt us in the long run. maybe we shouldnt have went into iraq, but we did so now we have to see it through or we just started a bigger shit storm.

 

[danzik17]

Yes it is doom and gloom but it is very possible. Here is something interesting...Report: IEA set to cut oil-supply forecast - MarketWatch
(IEA will report soon that future crude supplies could be far tighter than previously thought.

Right, that's why we need to use American ingenuity to find alternative energies. We simply can't maintain this level of spending on military excursions indefinitely, and Iraq will never be stable enough to stand on its own unless the Sunni and Shiite populations are segregated from each other. They just hate each other too much, plain and simple. With the increasing demand for oil, decreasing supply of oil, and the weakening of our dollar due to irresponsible fiscal policy, it's no stretch of the imagination to see a day when Americans can't even afford oil (gas) anymore.

The net result is the same whether oil supples are cut off or if we simply can't afford to buy it anymore. The only way to make a real difference is to break our dependency on oil to fuel our economy and develop a cheaper and preferably greener alternative.

The military is in no way the cause of this on their own however. Other excessive spending on pork barrel projects, medicare, medicaid, and the crap-ton of other welfare spending is just as much to blame if not more. The only way we can maintain this war is if we cut upwards of 600 billion dollars off of the budget to actually fund it. We can't just keep borrowing our war money and any new taxes will crush an already overburdened middle and lower class.

 

[CORUM]

then make them welfare fucks get a job!!!! that should cut more than 600 million in itself!!!

 

[danzik17]

In Fiscal 2007 the deficit was roughly 400 billion dollars. Welfare spending was 294 billion dollars. Even if we completely eliminated welfare, it still would not be enough.

Furthermore did you know that a full 13.55% of our taxes (not including FICA which theoretically shouldn't be touched by the government, but we all know it is) was paid as interest on the national debt? For every dollar in taxes you paid, a little over 13 cents was lost to foreign governments and banks. How does that make you feel?

 

[Big Smoothy]

You really don't understand.........I don't think we belong there either.....but we have to be there.

The US has always been there. Via the US dollar as the Oil Bourse money. By overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953, supporting Hosni Mubarak, the Saud family, the Kuwaiti royal family, Reza Sha, and other dictatorships.

The US has publicly supported these dictatorships in order to provide and maintain stability.
So you agree it is because of stability

We are there not only for our stabilty interests, but for the stabilty of the entire world. If we leave and terrosists take over Iraq, who's next. The whole middle east? What happens then? Oil stops flowing.

The terrorists are in Iraq because the US invaded. Oil production out of Iraq has not increased.
It has increased since the invasion, and yes it may not ever be to full production and I agree it doesn't matter as demand is greater than the output The amount of oil production from the reserves in Iraq would not be enough to quell demand and keep oil prices low, even if there was full capacity of output. And there won't be full capacity of output for years and year - if - it ever does happen - because of the security and turmoil.

Oil will not stop flowing. Oil will continue to flow. But it will be the type of oil that is more expensive to extract, and takes longer to tap into. maybe not stop flowing completely, but maybe enough that we stand in lines for hours one day a week to get our ration

You are using circular thinking, IMO. No offense.

 

[CORUM]

i would rather my taxes go to a country that we owe money to pay down national debt, then it go to some low lifes that do nothing but sit on their lazy ass and spit out more kids to get more money from welfare. all they do is spit out shit loads of kids and turn them loose in the streets to be little hoodlums, so they can collect more welfare money. i think we need to cut that shit off!!!!

 

[danzik17]

I agree with you completely. Those payments I was talking about don't pay down the national debt though, it only pays off the interest on the national debt. That is a cost that is recurring annually, and it grows annually as well.

What's sad is that according to those calculations, I spent more on paying interest on our national debt last week than I did on gas and electricity combined.

 

[CORUM]

o ok i got you now!! where do we stand in politics as far as someone looking at the nation debt, foriegn policies, etc. i really do not see ANY candidate looking at a realistic solution. i think it all sounds good on paper but it is not really thought out, it is not realistic. i think if someone actually spoke realisticly they would never get voted in. everyone wants to live in a dream and expect unrealistic results. so candidates are makeing all these promises that they can not realisticly fullfill.

 

[danzik17]

That's why I am supporting Ron Paul. He did address each of those problems individually and proposed pretty feasible solutions. The problem is as you said, people want to live in a fantasy land and want the government to keep taking care of them.

 

[CORUM]

yep!!

 

[Big Smoothy]

The US has always been there. Via the US dollar as the Oil Bourse money. By overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953, supporting Hosni Mubarak, the Saud family, the Kuwaiti royal family, Reza Sha, and other dictatorships.

The US has publicly supported these dictatorships in order to provide and maintain stability.
So you agree it is because of stability



The terrorists are in Iraq because the US invaded. Oil production out of Iraq has not increased.
It has increased since the invasion, and yes it may not ever be to full production and I agree it doesn't matter as demand is greater than the output The amount of oil production from the reserves in Iraq would not be enough to quell demand and keep oil prices low, even if there was full capacity of output. And there won't be full capacity of output for years and year - if - it ever does happen - because of the security and turmoil.

Oil will not stop flowing. Oil will continue to flow. But it will be the type of oil that is more expensive to extract, and takes longer to tap into. maybe not stop flowing completely, but maybe enough that we stand in lines for hours one day a week to get our ration

You are using circular thinking, IMO. No offense.

Hi dg806,

I think you accidentally used the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button.

No problem.