Are Politics Fair Game?

[TruBlu]

As stated in the topic, are politics fair game for the cadet lounge area of the forum. I realize there is one in the 18 and over forum, but was wondering if it was a legit topic for those that wish to partake in political discussions but are not yet 18. Of course, this would all be along the lines that it never got to the point of bashing other cadet's ideas or beliefs, and that all discussions were to stay civilized. Just wondering...

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Personally, with the right about of moderation, it would be fair game... we're not exactly idiots when it comes down to politics and discussion on wars and the like...

[C/ZOOMIE]

Personally, with the right about of moderation, it would be fair game... we're not exactly idiots when it comes down to politics and discussion on wars and the like...

We are kind of the service members of tommorow after all. I'm for McCain/Palin........

[TruBlu]

I wasn't implying that anyone here is stupid or anything. I just didn't want to step on a moderator's toes. I figured there may have been a reason why there wasn't a "political discussion" board for cadets.

[Blackhawk10]

I'm all for McCain/Palin. Originally I was for McCain but then saw that he was more liberal on many topics then I felt he should, but my other choice is long gone and McCain is back to number one. Besides being a war hero, he knows how to use the military and won't take crap from anyone... like Reagan hopefully. :D

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Actually... we shouldn't be allowed to discuss politics...

We're high schoolers... we probably won't even know half the stuff we're talking about.

[AirForceAlways]

Personally, I'm not comfortable sharing my political views, but that's just me. Though, I'd seriously suggest waiting for a mod to step in and give us a heads up before we continue on here.

[ang1sgt]

In the Cadet Lounge, pretty much ANYTHING goes within reason. We still expect you to be professional and courteous to each other. A little ribbing is not a problem.

Politics can be a tough subject and one that is hotly debated. Myself, I try and stay out of most of those battles. My years of Service and Years of time on God's Green Earth has taught me that Political Debates and myself do not get along. I educate myself about the topics that interest me, and then compare them to the candidates idea on those same subjects. I am as different as the candidates themselves. I don't expect to find one that I agree with 100%.

So... With thinking of the Cadet Protection Policy and such... Have at it, but keep your cool!

[TruBlu]

In the Cadet Lounge, pretty much ANYTHING goes within reason. We still expect you to be professional and courteous to each other. A little ribbing is not a problem.

Politics can be a tough subject and one that is hotly debated. Myself, I try and stay out of most of those battles. My years of Service and Years of time on God's Green Earth has taught me that Political Debates and myself do not get along. I educate myself about the topics that interest me, and then compare them to the candidates idea on those same subjects. I am as different as the candidates themselves. I don't expect to find one that I agree with 100%.

So... With thinking of the Cadet Protection Policy and such... Have at it, but keep your cool!

That's exactly what I wanted to hear from a moderator. So its all good, as long as its in good taste and does not get out of hand, sounds fair to me.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Alright then... so, what should our first political discussion be about?

Cross border raids into Pakistan?

[Startingover]

Why would you want to start off with that? What about nuclear activity in Iran/North Korea?

We still have a preview function, please utilize it

[HairyEyeball]

Actually... we shouldn't be allowed to discuss politics...

We're high schoolers... we probably won't even know half the stuff we're talking about.

You're in high school - the same age as many of the troops who fought and died in the war that gave us our country, and the unpleasantness of the 1860s...it's a fairly safe bet they made the effort on their own to be informed on politics. At one time 'civics' was a mandatory course in the seventh and eighth grades, and 'current events' were part of the second grade curriculum on up. If your school would rather keep you ignorant, read newspapers and online 'publications' - you may not get an accurate picture, but you'll have a starting point.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, ignorance is an inherent condition, but treatable. Willful and malicious ignorance, the refusal to learn - and it's always voluntary - is a conscious choice. It's one thing to have someone offer you a quarter to 'go buy a clue'. It's something else entirely to have no idea where they're sold.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Well sir, I try to stay well informed on the issues. :P

[TruBlu]

Why would you want to start off with that? What about nuclear activity in Iran/North Korea?

We still have a preview function, please utilize it

While I don't necessarily support their ambition for nuclear weapons, I believe that they have just as much right as other countries to have current weapons systems for defense purposes. I'm not saying these things should go unregulated, they most certainly should be, but the regulation procedures for maintaining balances and restrictions needs to be thought through (of course I'm no expert in this field and would never even claim a good knowledge of it) from all perspectives.

Iran - In my opinion, they are out of their minds scared about where they are. Think about it, we currently occupy two major bordering countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), and they feel threatened (not saying that they aren't quick to lay out threats, just look at their relationship with Israel) as they should be. Think about it this way, what if Iran had the capacity to invade Mexico and Canada. We would be up in arms and ready to go (it also wouldn't happen because we would assist both countries from invasions, but its a hypothetical situation). Iran should be allowed to continue their nuclear ambitions for power (hey we should too, that would help our oil addiction, I mean really look at France, but that's another debate entirely), but their weapons need to be regulated. Iran will poses nuclear weapons in the near future, whether that be their own production, or buying from a friend (I hear Russia has lots of weapons and likes to flex a lot too, but yet again another debate for another time).

N. Korea - They are in a similar situation as Iran, they've got US troops right below them. But they've also got the Chinese above them, so they have a big enemy, and a big ally if push comes to shove (Russia and China have been talking a lot lately eh?). They've always wanted arms of course because they would like to unify, or rather control, S. Korea. N. Korea's armaments need to also be regulated and watched, but it will be much much easier for us to detect nuclear activity in N. Korea because they are very strait forward as to what they want to do, and don't care what we have to say about it. Of course N. Korea likes to flex with those little test rockets, but I think its just that and not much deeper.

All in all, many countries want nuclear power, and the weapons that come along with it as a little prize. Some countries need to be watched more than others and regulated differently. But, I don't think this is something that the US needs to be playing big man on campus about. I personally believe that the UN (troops are mainly US but its the UN directly and US indirectly) needs to step it up more and be more proactive about these things.

[flyBoy2010]

All in all, many countries want nuclear power, and the weapons that come along with it as a little prize. Some countries need to be watched more than others and regulated differently. But, I don't think this is something that the US needs to be playing big man on campus about. I personally believe that the UN (troops are mainly US but its the UN directly and US indirectly) needs to step it up more and be more proactive about these things.
I agree! The U.S. doesn't need to be the police of the world. That is the job of the UN. If a country wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful reasons there should be no problem with that. However, in countries like Iran and North Korea, where there is a history of aggression and leaders who might pose a threat to their neighboring countries, the UN, not the US, needs to step in and take control of the situation.

[C/ZOOMIE]

Kind of off topic but my Uncle who was a P-3 Orion pilot in the Navy was telling me a story once. He said when he was in flight school and Jimmy Carter was in office none of the pilots could get any flight time in due to lack of funding. He said a week after Reagan was voted into office his whole squadron was suddenly supplied with tons of fuel and weapons and he and his friends were finally able to complete flight school. Just a thought............

[HairyEyeball]

Being the 'world police force' is not, to borrow from the vernacular, 'what we're about' - it is not our obligation nor is it our place. Protecting our nation - including those who have not yet met reality on its terms (and those are the only terms you'll ever meet it on) and the millions suffering cranio-rectal inversion - from madmen and fanatics is.

In the days of wooden ships, when attacks occurred with enough warning to muster resistance, we could live in our insular little world and let Europe deal with Europe and the savages of North Africa slaughter each other. Those days are gone: Our 'defensive perimeter', to all practical intents and purposes, encompasses the entire globe - and the areas above it. An Iranian nuke - or six -could easily be driven north through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California. A Korean nuke - or a dozen - can comfortably sit in a CONUS Box or container aboard an 'innocent' freighter, and be loaded on a truck or flatcar. Either can be mounted on an IRBM and ship-launched miles beyond our continental shelf. There are a dozen more scenarios - all of which impact our national security.

Any steps we take to deter these or similar threats can and will be 'interpreted' by our enemies - foreign and domestic - to our detriment, and given the 'world police' spin, and the naive and inexperienced will 'buy into it'. Some things just can't be changed, just as some facts cannot be denied. One of the latter is that - especially as the 'warrior class' of what I still believe the finest nation on earth - we don't have to be 'liked', but we will be respected.

[flyBoy2010]

Being the 'world police force' is not, to borrow from the vernacular, 'what we're about' - it is not our obligation nor is it our place. Protecting our nation - including those who have not yet met reality on its terms (and those are the only terms you'll ever meet it on) and the millions suffering cranio-rectal inversion - from madmen and fanatics is.

In the days of wooden ships, when attacks occurred with enough warning to muster resistance, we could live in our insular little world and let Europe deal with Europe and the savages of North Africa slaughter each other. Those days are gone: Our 'defensive perimeter', to all practical intents and purposes, encompasses the entire globe - and the areas above it. An Iranian nuke - or six -could easily be driven north through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California. A Korean nuke - or a dozen - can comfortably sit in a CONUS Box or container aboard an 'innocent' freighter, and be loaded on a truck or flatcar. Either can be mounted on an IRBM and ship-launched miles beyond our continental shelf. There are a dozen more scenarios - all of which impact our national security.

Any steps we take to deter these or similar threats can and will be 'interpreted' by our enemies - foreign and domestic - to our detriment, and given the 'world police' spin, and the naive and inexperienced will 'buy into it'. Some things just can't be changed, just as some facts cannot be denied. One of the latter is that - especially as the 'warrior class' of what I still believe the finest nation on earth - we don't have to be 'liked', but we will be respected.

I see your point, but I still think that it is the job of the UN to decide wheter a country should have the right to develop nuclear weapons. What if Russia felt it was in danger from Great Britain developing nukes and decided that in the interests of its national security to invade Britain and disable its nuclear program?

My point is that you can spin this any way, but the UN was started specifically for situations like this and that needs to be respected.

[TruBlu]

I see your point, but I still think that it is the job of the UN to decide wheter a country should have the right to develop nuclear weapons. What if Russia felt it was in danger from Great Britain developing nukes and decided that in the interests of its national security to invade Britain and disable its nuclear program?

My point is that you can spin this any way, but the UN was started specifically for situations like this and that needs to be respected.

HairEyeball is most certainly correct about the days of forewarning being over, and that our enemies can strike us anywhere. Even though the UN was basically (not entirely) created by the US, I think that the US and the UN's relationship needs to be like that of any other country that is a member, just that. I do believe that the US needs to strengthen its efforts in domestic protection. Our ports and entry to this country are not protected well enough. This is not to say that our current men and women that serve within the Coast Guard, Port Authority, and Border Control are doing an unsatisfactory job, its that there is a lack of them for the amount of area that needs to be covered.

I am a firm believer of protecting the mainland, at the mainland.

[-BuLL-]

You just barely beat me Hairy. I am a high school student, but I still read the paper every morning, watch the news every day, discuss current events with friends and classmates. I even form my own opinions about candidates then discuss them with my parents. Heck, I even watched part of both conventions. Just because I'm in high school and am not old enough for my opinion to count, I still have one.

[StormCrow]

Nuke Activity in Iran...hmmm

I don't support Nuclear Activity at all. Although I do agree with the sentiment that the US should not be the police force of the World, our military is one of the most advanced and superbly trained in the world. Thus, making us the ideal choice by the UN for police actions. granted yes it is the UN's job however, we are part of the UN and in my opinion I would rather be safe than sorry. I mean, truly the purpose of War is to serve a political end, but the nature of War is to serve itself.

Where am I going with this? Well we say that we don't like Nuke Activity, however, we aren't guilty of the crime itself. So, lets say hypothetically, that Iran launches at us, we see them, we launch. Our birds pass each other in the air and now you have Nuclear Holocaust. So I think the use of a military police action is the smarter route rather than sit and wait.

Storm

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

How many of you believe that Israel is going to pull off another Osirak type raid?

I think that they are, and they're going to do it very, very soon.

[flyBoy2010]

How many of you believe that Israel is going to pull off another Osirak type raid?

I think that they are, and they're going to do it very, very soon.

Based on their recent military activity I think that such a raid is possible if not probable in the near future, however I think Israel will think carefully about their neighbors retaliation before they pull off such a raid.

[C.A.P. Flight Officer]

If we pull out of the Middle East, do you think the UN should step inn and police for a while? :mp:

[C/ZOOMIE]

If we pull out of the Middle East, do you think the UN should step inn and police for a while? :mp:

We let them control us in Somalia, look how that turned out.................

[StormCrow]

Sorry, Fellas but...

Who needs the UN?

Storm

[Startingover]

We let them control us in Somalia, look how that turned out.................

Well that might be a problem cause if they could not even handle a simple orgainization like that, how could they decide they want to thrust themselves into international waters outside their region. Just cause they have a few dozen modified F-16s and various other aircraft, some old tanks doesnt make you a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Honestly I wish they would just take a seat for a minute and look at how much danger they are really in. They dont understand politics and other initiatives. Just they know that religiously they are opposed to everyone around them and it makes them a very big target, especially from Iran and Pakistan.

[C/ZOOMIE]

Well that might be a problem cause if they could not even handle a simple orgainization like that, how could they decide they want to thrust themselves into international waters outside their region. Just cause they have a few dozen modified F-16s and various other aircraft, some old tanks doesnt make you a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Honestly I wish they would just take a seat for a minute and look at how much danger they are really in. They dont understand politics and other initiatives. Just they know that religiously they are opposed to everyone around them and it makes them a very big target, especially from Iran and Pakistan.

The UN defenitly needs to get their heads out of their a$$es and actually try helping. Good point......

[StormCrow]

Well if you think about it...the UN does more damage than good...look at their track record. I mean for a peace keeping organization they sure haven't kept the peace. After their formation the United States alone has been in what three four major wars.

Storm

[C/ZOOMIE]

Well if you think about it...the UN does more damage than good...look at their track record. I mean for a peace keeping organization they sure haven't kept the peace. After their formation the United States alone has been in what three four major wars.

Storm

Yeah well, look what they did in Somalia as I mentioned earlier. They ****ed it all up........

[Startingover]

What track record? Even going back to the Leigion, its been a complete joke trying to keep everyone under a unitary banner of peace. There are always going to be power struggles and Im sorry, but Woodrow Wilsons vision of a United Nations has never been realized.

I remember what the 14 points he said were... and they were great ideas, but people who dont want that will always fight against it...

The UN is a joke right now and I doubt it will get better... too much chaos.

[TruBlu]

First off, I believe Somalia and operations Restore Hope and Gothic Serpent were bad ideas. Of course that really easy to say in retrospect, and almost everyone would agree with that. I'm not saying that the UN is necessarily doing their job, or what they were created for. But they did bail us out when we messed up there (not saying they didn't restrict us, which they did). I don't mean to post about a movie as my source, but its got to be the most recognizable one, and I'm sure everyone has seen it, but remember Black Hawk Down?

Anyways, all in all, warfare has changed. There are no longer rules of engagement for the enemy, so why should there be rules of engagement for us while facing that enemy? Of course that's really easy to say because I'm not active duty or fighting or anything like that. But some random guy walking around on the street with an AK-47 is up to no good... But I think that we and the UN have been pinned down by ourselves, our own rules of engagement and what we choose to engage in.

[StormCrow]

Truly,

Every thing that the UN has stepped into has been botched up, or botched up with the cost of many lives particularly those of the US soldier. As long as there are separate nations, there will be war.

Storm

[TruBlu]

Truly,

Every thing that the UN has stepped into has been botched up, or botched up with the cost of many lives particularly those of the US soldier. As long as there are separate nations, there will be war.

Storm

As long as human nature survives, there will be war.

[StormCrow]

Well Carl Von Clauswitz said that "War is a continuation of politics by other means." That is true...But I like to believe that yes the purpose of War is to serve a political end but the true nature of war is to serve itself.

Storm

[TruBlu]

Well Carl Von Clauswitz said that "War is a continuation of politics by other means." That is true...But I like to believe that yes the purpose of War is to serve a political end but the true nature of war is to serve itself.

Storm

Well said StormCrow, a very poetic fellow eh?

But you said something that triggered something I can't stand about politicians (not saying that you said it, just mentioning politics and war being a continuation sparked it), is when the are trying to run a war instead of letting the experienced military commanders run it. Like what happened in Vietnam, and kind of like whats happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq...

[flyBoy2010]

Well said StormCrow, a very poetic fellow eh?

But you said something that triggered something I can't stand about politicians (not saying that you said it, just mentioning politics and war being a continuation sparked it), is when the are trying to run a war instead of letting the experienced military commanders run it. Like what happened in Vietnam, and kind of like whats happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq...

In the 1991 Gulf War an overwhelming force eliminated all possible escape routes and quickly took care of all Iraqi treats in Kuwait. 694,550 US troops were deployed to the region with other coalition forces, including 100,000 Turks on Iraq's northern border
In 2001, for Operation Enduring Freedom instead of sending in an overwhelming force to surround and capture top Al-Qaeda members, only 20,000 troops were sent in at the request of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He sending in small numbers of special forces to quickly and quietly disband the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
If Operation Enduring Freedom had been done in a manner similar to Operation Desert Storm, it is my opinion that Osama Bin-Laden would be in US custody and the US presence in Afghanistan would be over or very close to it. But because of politicians overriding the experienced military commanders the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been drawn out way too long.

[TruBlu]

In the 1991 Gulf War an overwhelming force eliminated all possible escape routes and quickly took care of all Iraqi treats in Kuwait. 694,550 US troops were deployed to the region with other coalition forces, including 100,000 Turks on Iraq's northern border
In 2001, for Operation Enduring Freedom instead of sending in an overwhelming force to surround and capture top Al-Qaeda members, only 20,000 troops were sent in at the request of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He sending in small numbers of special forces to quickly and quietly disband the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
If Operation Enduring Freedom had been done in a manner similar to Operation Desert Storm, it is my opinion that Osama Bin-Laden would be in US custody and the US presence in Afghanistan would be over or very close to it. But because of politicians overriding the experienced military commanders the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been drawn out way too long.

We should have gone in with 500,000. Not kidding, you don't hijack and crash planes into buildings and expect to get away with it (or maybe the do because they knew we wouldn't respond with a force to truly be reckoned with). One thing that I do agree with right now are the cross border raids (something good that Bush authorized in my opinion), because the way I see it, they are harboring these terrorists factions, and if they don't want to play ball, they're out.

[flyBoy2010]

We should have gone in with 500,000. Not kidding, you don't hijack and crash planes into buildings and expect to get away with it (or maybe the do because they knew we wouldn't respond with a force to truly be reckoned with). One thing that I do agree with right now are the cross border raids (something good that Bush authorized in my opinion), because the way I see it, they are harboring these terrorists factions, and if they don't want to play ball, they're out.

The problem we had in the invasion of Afghanistan was arguing between the higher ups. Secretary of State Colin Powell was pushing for the same approach we had in the Gulf War: overwhelming force. While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing the quick and light approach.
Arguing like this at the higher levels can only lead to trouble.

[TruBlu]

The problem we had in the invasion of Afghanistan was arguing between the higher ups. Secretary of State Colin Powell was pushing for the same approach we had in the Gulf War: overwhelming force. While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing the quick and light approach.
Arguing like this at the higher levels can only lead to trouble.

And a broken front, which is one of the biggest problems in American history. I don't know how anyone expects us to succeed if our leaders can't even come to terms 90% of the time. And the sad thing is, is that I don't think it could be fixed within this next term or two, because everyone's views are so diametrically opposed about some of the most base issues, the war being one of them.

[flyBoy2010]

And a broken front, which is one of the biggest problems in American history. I don't know how anyone expects us to succeed if our leaders can't even come to terms 90% of the time. And the sad thing is, is that I don't think it could be fixed within this next term or two, because everyone's views are so diametrically opposed about some of the most base issues, the war being one of them.

What is clear about the next term is whoever is elected President, Obama or McCain, is going to need to do something about the Iraq war.

[AlphaNovember]

In the 1991 Gulf War an overwhelming force eliminated all possible escape routes and quickly took care of all Iraqi treats in Kuwait. 694,550 US troops were deployed to the region with other coalition forces, including 100,000 Turks on Iraq's northern border
In 2001, for Operation Enduring Freedom instead of sending in an overwhelming force to surround and capture top Al-Qaeda members, only 20,000 troops were sent in at the request of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He sending in small numbers of special forces to quickly and quietly disband the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
If Operation Enduring Freedom had been done in a manner similar to Operation Desert Storm, it is my opinion that Osama Bin-Laden would be in US custody and the US presence in Afghanistan would be over or very close to it. But because of politicians overriding the experienced military commanders the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been drawn out way too long.

I couldn't agree more. I'm confident that if we took the Taliban by force, with 500,000+ US service members combined with hundreds of thousands of service members from allying countries, then Operation Enduring Freedom would be nearly done by now, with only the finishing touches on our brand new Afghanistan bases left to go.

The Taliban would have nothing to do except surrender (but, obviously that won't happen, so "die" would be their second option) when they're surrounded by layers of Soldiers and Marines, while artillery shells, mortars, and bombs are raining down on them.

[TruBlu]

What is clear about the next term is whoever is elected President, Obama or McCain, is going to need to do something about the Iraq war.

And fast. Either way, one of them will be taking a whole lot of flak whichever way the go. If we pull out we are abandoning them, and if we don't we are wasting our servicemen (I don't believe that's how it should be, but politics and media will see it that way). There doesn't seem to be a right way out when it comes down to politics and what the media report. I am not really impressed by either candidate 100%, both have their faults, and both have their strengths. But whoever the next president is, every decision with that war will include sacrifice.

What I believe needs to happen is an address, that tells the American people exactly what has happened over the past years there. Something not dissimilar from Roosevelt's "fire side chats" would be appropriate in my opinion. But what we need to know is this: Why are we in those two countries? Who do we have in those countries? Who are we facing? How much progress has really been made? Are we still focusing on our initial goals?

[flyBoy2010]

In my opinion we should never have gone into Iraq. We should have concentrated our efforts to dismantling the real threats: Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[TruBlu]

In my opinion we should never have gone into Iraq. We should have concentrated our efforts to dismantling the real threats: Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And now they have successfully relocated themselves to a safe haven country, and we can't officially touch them. The US tried to do too many things too quickly with too few people. And now we pay the price, or rather our servicemen pay the price. God help them, as he only knows what lies ahead with more serious threats than baddies with AKs...

[C/Major Black]

In my opinion we should never have gone into Iraq. We should have concentrated our efforts to dismantling the real threats: Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, we can't get rid of one without the other. The U.S. concentrated on both areas, and therfore succeeding in one aspcet, (making Iraq a safe nation, and running Al-Qaeda and the Talibn out), we can now try to reason with the countries they are running to, to sell them out. One of them being Saudi Arabia.

As long as we don't invade Iran or North Korea, I feel pretty good.

[flyBoy2010]

The only problem is that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban weren't in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda only came after we invaded.

[TruBlu]

Unfortunately, we can't get rid of one without the other. The U.S. concentrated on both areas, and therfore succeeding in one aspcet, (making Iraq a safe nation, and running Al-Qaeda and the Talibn out), we can now try to reason with the countries they are running to, to sell them out. One of them being Saudi Arabia.

As long as we don't invade Iran or North Korea, I feel pretty good.

Iraq and Afghanistan are far from safe countries. And Al Qaeda and the Taliban have simply relocated their high command to safer countries like Pakistan. Now we are trying to clean up all the ground pounding radicals out of the place. But that will NEVER happen. The situation has been much the same in the Middle East forever. Religious radicals have been fighting their for thousands of years. What makes anyone think that us sending in our forces thousands of miles away without clear objectives is going to stop them. They are driven by a force and idea that is much greater than any government can.

[C/Major Black]

Religious radicals have been fighting their for thousands of years. What makes anyone think that us sending in our forces thousands of miles away without clear objectives is going to stop them. They are driven by a force and idea that is much greater than any government can.

Well.....I don't think I can argue with that statement TruBlu.
But the fact of the matter is, we still need to protect the homeland from those religious radicals, and the only way we can accomplish that feat, is by stopping it at the soruce. Since there is no definite location of a source, were forced to find it, crush it, and prevent it from spreading to another nation; and therfore preventing another 9-11.

[flyBoy2010]

A better way to protect the homeland is to do just that. Strengthen our national defenses with the Coast Guard and spend more time protecting our own borders in stead of others borders.

[TruBlu]

A better way to protect the homeland is to do just that. Strengthen our national defenses with the Coast Guard and spend more time protecting our own borders in stead of others borders.

I mostly agree with that. I am not saying that pursuing terrorists is a bad thing, of course its the only thing we can do. But I think that strengthening our nation's defenses should be our first priority, the offensive is second.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Now... we turn our attention to another thing.

Sarah Palin claiming that her command of the Alaskan National Guard is military command experience.

I've actually read that she delegated ALL authority regarding the Alaskan National Guard to the General in charge, and she has NO part in the decisions.

[flyBoy2010]

The governor tells the generals what she wants done and then they command the troops. That does not qualify as military command experience. Another topic she talks about is her foreign policy experience. She thinks that being close to Russia and Canada makes her an expert on foreign policy.

[C.A.P. Flight Officer]

No offense to anyone here but how the devil does that qualify as foreign policy experience? Has she ever delt with Canada on anything about Alaska?
New Thought - Do you think she would have been picked to be the VP running-mate if she was a man with the same credentials/qualifications?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

No! I think McCain made a very, very stupid choice on choosing Palin as his VP.

[C.A.P. Flight Officer]

No! I think McCain made a very, very stupid choice on choosing Palin as his VP.

Why do you think he made a stupid choice of choosing Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate?

[flyBoy2010]

I agree, his biggest argument against Obama was his lack of experience. Then he goes and picks Palin for his VP. She has even less experience than Obama, and the experience she does have doesn't inspire confidence in her.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Why do you think he made a stupid choice of choosing Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate?

She has virtually no experience in politics, she voted for Alaska to leave the union (which is a state right, but, that's another arguement), she can't debate (which, I know, speaking has nothing to do with knowledge, but, it is a huge portion of politics), she dodges questions like they were knives, and she lies. (Yeah, I know, politics is all lies, right?)

[PhilK]

Gentlemen, I recommend you all take a step back and do some real digging into what it is you are talking about.

Many of you are sounding like you have read one or two news articles on Yahoo news and run with the info as ground truth.

You are entitled to your opinions, however I encourage to have WELL INFORMED opinions.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Yes, Sir. However, most of the stuff that you read/watch on T.V. is mainly up to the writer/producer of the paper/show. However, I fail to see how being close to Russia and Canada qualifies someone for Vice President... if that's the case, then I'm overly qualified.

[PhilK]

Yes, Sir. However, most of the stuff that you read/watch on T.V. is mainly up to the writer/producer of the paper/show. However, I fail to see how being close to Russia and Canada qualifies someone for Vice President... if that's the case, then I'm overly qualified.

The only qualifications to be Vice President are:

The qualifications for the vice presidency are the same as those for the presidency. The vice president must be a native-born American of at least 35 years of age who has resided in the United States for at least 14 years.


Now, you may not think she has the experience to be Vice President, but then that takes you down the road that none of the previous Governors of states were not experienced enough to become President of the United States like these fine fellows:

Thomas Jefferson, Governor of Virginia, 1779-81
James Monroe, Governor of Virginia, 1799-1802
Andrew Jackson, Governor of the Florida Territory, 1821
Martin Van Buren, Governor of New York, 1829
William Henry Harrison, Territorial Governor of Indiana, 1801-13
John Tyler, Governor of Virginia, 1825-26
James Knox Polk, Governor of Tennessee, 1839-41
Andrew Johnson, Governor of Tennessee, 1853-57, Military Governor of Tennessee, 1862-65
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Governor of Ohio, 1868-72, Governor of Ohio, 1876-77
Grover Cleveland, Governor of New York, 1883-85
William McKinley, Governor of Ohio, 1892-96
Theodore Roosevelt, Governor of New York, 1898-1900
William Howard Taft, Governor of the Philippines, 1901-04
Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, 1911-13
Calvin Coolidge, Governor of Massachusetts, 1919-20
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Governor of New York, 1929-33
James Earl Carter, Jr., Governor of Georgia, 1971-75
Ronald Wilson Reagan, Governor of California, 1967-75
William Jefferson Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, 1978-80, 1982-92
George Walker Bush, Governor of Texas, 1995-2000


Finally, anytime you have a shared border with another country, you have some interaction with that country's leaders. (I live in Texas and I know that Governor Perry and Mexico's President have met before to discuss border issues.)

Again, think about what you say. Look at the second and third order effects.

Oh...and even if Gov. Palin delegated day to day operations of the Alaskan military forces (Army and Air Guard) to the state Adjutant General, she was still the state's Commander in Chief and only she could authorize a state call up of Soldiers and only she could agree to send Soldiers to support the GWOT.

As the Governor, the buck still stops on her desk. The Adjutant General may be replaced, but she will still be held responsible for the actions of Alaska's Guard forces.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Sir, I wasn't arguing that her being Govenor didn't qualify her for Vice President, just that she doesn't have the experience or even the preparation to take on such a large burden.

[PhilK]

Sir, I wasn't arguing that her being Govenor didn't qualify her for Vice President, just that she doesn't have the experience or even the preparation to take on such a large burden.

I would then ask, did any of the Governors above have the experience or preparation to be President?

If the answer is yes, then why does a Governor not qualify to be Vice President?

If the answer is no, then do you think the American public made a mistake in electing those men into office?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Well sir, I believe that the answer is no, they probably had little to no experience in such matters, however, they stepped up to the plate and of all listed, they did their jobs excellently. (In my opinion). I do not believe the American people made a mistake, but the case is different for Palin, as she has shown that she says the same things, over, and over, and over, and many of those things have little or nothing to do with the question!

[PhilK]

Well sir, I believe that the answer is no, they probably had little to no experience in such matters, however, they stepped up to the plate and of all listed, they did their jobs excellently. (In my opinion). I do not believe the American people made a mistake, but the case is different for Palin, as she has shown that she says the same things, over, and over, and over, and many of those things have little or nothing to do with the question!


First, you do realize that you are talking about the Vice Presidential candidate right? The name on the bottom of the bumper sticker.

If the Governors who were elected to the highest office in the United States were able to get up to speed and lead this country, why would you think that a Governor who is trying to become the Vice President of the US, not be able to get up to speed on Vice Presidential duties? Is there not a greater burden on the President then there is on the VP?

I understand what you are typing, but I think you are focused too much on a Vice Presidential candidate instead of the two men who are trying to become the President.

[Armed Drill Addict]

No! I think McCain made a very, very stupid choice on choosing Palin as his VP.

I completely disagree, by choosing Palin as his VP he gave the Democrats someone to hate. This in turn united the Republican party more against the Democrats.

I agree, his biggest argument against Obama was his lack of experience. Then he goes and picks Palin for his VP. She has even less experience than Obama, and the experience she does have doesn't inspire confidence in her.

What tells you that she has less experience than Senator Obama?
As far as I can tell the only experience that Obama has that she doesn't is how to have a personal realtionship with Radicals such as: Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Reverand Jeremiah Wright.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Well Sir, on the subject of Presidents --

I have looked at each candidate, and I believe both have major faults.

Obama's healthcare plan requires either higher taxes (Ex. Canada, Sweeden), or cutting funding from another area. He also wants to take away my Second Amendment Rights.

McCain's economic plan I believe would help big businesses more, and he may get us into another war before our military can recouperate from these two major conflicts.

[Billyd]

McCain's economic plan I believe would help big businesses more, and he may get us into another war before our military can recouperate from these two major conflicts.

Answer this question for me then:

If not for big businesses, and small businesses for that matter, who provides the jobs that enable individuals to earn a living and pay taxes?

Everyone who thinks that taxing those entities that make more that $250K makes sense, take a look at what happened with the raise in the federal minimum wage. Some people, those that could afford it least, lost their jobs so that others could get their federally mandated wage increase. Don't forget that corporations do not pay taxes. Taxes are a cost of doing business and those costs are passed on to the consumer via higher prices.

[mtnsldr]

The thing that kills me is that the uninformed public will make their case based off soundbytes from a debate... and unfortunately we're passing this trait on to our children.

Take a look at what each VP candidate has done. Look at why they did it. Then do the same for the Presidential candidates.

How many Congressmen do you know that have sacrificed personally for the good of their constituents?

Sarah Palin sold her airplane to reduce the cost of the Governor's office.

How many times has John McCain worked with both sides of the aisle on issues because he felt they were important to his constituents in Arizona, and the people of this nation? How many times have you heard Biden called a Maverick?

Votes are subjective too. With the amount of riders and additionals added to each bill, I'm amazed anything passes. Look at the bailout bill. Look at actually how much of that 700 billion really went to the most affected economic entities... It isn't as black and white as "Obama voted against the troops". But you wouldn't know that if all you listened to were the sound bytes from CNN/Fox/MSBC.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I think one of the biggest problems today is that we've embraced the appeal to authority as a valid basis for argumentation and decision making. If somebody important says something, then it must be true, right? We're setting ourselves up for failure by not doing proper research on things.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

BillyD: Very good point. That's what I thought about following posting that.

mtnsldr: I try my best to listen to everything, not just soundbytes, but, actually watch, analyze, and draw conclusions from interviews, debates, and the like. I've actually seen Obama's and McCain's economic plans, but as I've found out, what may look good on paper may be horrible in practice (Communism), and what may not look good on paper may work excellently in practice.

SeminarianTim: Most things that are coming out are up to, as I said before, the producer/writer of the show/paper. It's very hard and time consuming to actually cut through the bias and crap to get to the root of everything.

EDIT -- Of course, I'm still in High School, so if I got anything wrong, please point it out.

[mtnsldr]

mtnsldr: I try my best to listen to everything, not just soundbytes, but, actually watch, analyze, and draw conclusions from interviews, debates, and the like. I've actually seen Obama's and McCain's economic plans, but as I've found out, what may look good on paper may be horrible in practice (Communism), and what may not look good on paper may work excellently in practice.


You're not listening to me. Interviews and debates, etc, will only tell you what either the interviewer or the candidate wants you to know. Look at their voting record. When it looks like they voted against your ideals, look at the bill. If the bill had riders you would or wouldn't have accepted, you have a better idea of what that candidate stands for. As for Palin, yeah, she isn't stunning in front of the microphone (speaking anyway). But look at what she actually did, and maybe you can see some benefit in someone who has a habit of finding inefficiency and stamping it out. I mean, which is more realistic, that she'll hunt out inefficiency and at least bring it to light, if not fix it, or that she'll create legislation that declares the United States as an abortion free zone?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Hm... will do Sir.

[C.A.P. Flight Officer]

Did anyone see the Presidential debate last night (10-7-08)? I believe there should be more debates in that format. I believe the city hall format brings more out of the opponents than a regular debate format.

[Drill for life]

We are kind of the service members of tommorow after all. I'm for McCain/Palin........

MCCAIN 08. I want a President who knows exactly what I am going through. 2/3's of the Military are voting for Mccain, doesn't that tell you something. I should just stop here cause I can go forever on this topic. I want a President who has the Military aspect in mind. Senator Obamba is playing the Race card and he's getting on Senator/Captain Mcain for talking about his experience as a POW. Senator Obama needs to stop calling the Kettle Black.

[SlightlyCatholic]

2/3's of the Military are voting for Mccain, doesn't that tell you something.

That's an interesting statistic, could you show me where you found that?

[PhoenixCadet]

That's an interesting statistic, could you show me where you found that?

While I wouldn't doubt that statistic at all, I'd also like to see proof. Interestingly enough, a fellow CAP member over on another message board I post on brought this story up regarding his airmen and the elction.

He was in his shop one day, and overheard two airmen talking about who they were going to vote for. One of them said "McCain", and when asked why, he simply said "because isn't that who we're supposed to vote for"? (Though, according to my friend - he couldn't give one reason why except tying in that he's the more military-minded one.)

While I favor McCain (quite heavily) over Obama, I would like to say - don't vote for someone simply based off of one fact (or following a certain crowd, "e.g. he's more military-minded, so isn't he the one we should vote for?). Do research. Compare and contrast candidates' websites. Watch the debates. Decide who you think is right - not who others think is best.

-PC

EDIT: The only thing I could find on the subject was a Navy Times article - however, only 4,300 military personnel were surveyed (voluntarily). Not that big of a number for quite a declaritive statement.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

[SlightlyCatholic]

I just said that because I'm not a big fan of people posting facts without citing where they came from. Opinions don't mean anything unless they're substantiated.

[Armed Drill Addict]

I was just sitting in class, and listened to a few freshmen talk about how they love Obama, but could not give me one reason why. It's ignorance like this that bothers me. People follow a candidate because "He's cool!" or something to that effect. It's a good thing these people are so young and can't vote because this is no way for the process to work.

They then brought up the point that people say Obama might get assassinated, and that that's ok because he has a good vice president, and that even all the republicans like him. Let me check my memory bank, but as far as I can tell I have never heard any republican say they love Biden. Personally I think he's thick headed and not that smart of a guy common sense wise, but hey I would say the same thing about Obama too.

[PhoenixCadet]

People follow a candidate because "He's cool!" or something to that effect. It's a good thing these people are so young and can't vote because this is no way for the process to work.

I wish that statement held truth, but if you frequented my school - you'd be wrong. Many, and I mean many, of the voting-age seniors hold this mindset. I've even heard comments like "if McCain were younger or not as ugly".

Makes you want to smack them silly.

-PC

[TruBlu]

Did anyone see the Presidential debate last night (10-7-08)? I believe there should be more debates in that format. I believe the city hall format brings more out of the opponents than a regular debate format.

I hated it, I couldn't watch it all. All they did was do the "he said she said" and played the blame game. I really can't stand it when candidates attack each other, as opposed to building a good foundation for themselves. The way I see it, this election is much like the elections before hand, a choice of the lesser of two evils. If I was voting, I would probably vote McCain, mostly because Obama has far far less Senatorial experience and foreign policy skills (but Biden makes up for both of those, especially the latter of the two). I don't like Palin, her debate was better than expectations, but lets be honest, they weren't really that high to start off with. What I'm trying to say is this: neither of these two men are going to be able to get done what the American people want, either that's because we want too much that can't be done by one term or because the Senate/Congress is so split right now, nothing will ever be passed.

This government needs to stop playing the party game and decide on things that are best for the country, not that party or individual. Some things will never be decided on and agreed with, and that's OK, but things like the war, the economy, etc., should be agreeable topics. We can't stay in a war forever and its time that country's military took over (yes yes I know that every day they do just that, but why is this taking so long, I think its just a reluctance to relinquish control). The economy needs to be fixed, of course. They should regulate companies more and their CEOs, those are the guys that are driving them into the ground and having us, the taxpayers, bail them out for it. And more!

One man will not solve all our problems. As soon as America recognizes that, we can move forward with this election thinking, "Who can set us up for the coming years, not try to bail us out with everything now?"

[C.A.P. Flight Officer]

I hated it, I couldn't watch it all. All they did was do the "he said she said" and played the blame game. I really can't stand it when candidates attack each other, as opposed to building a good foundation for themselves. The way I see it, this election is much like the elections before hand, a choice of the lesser of two evils. If I was voting, I would probably vote McCain, mostly because Obama has far far less Senatorial experience and foreign policy skills (but Biden makes up for both of those, especially the latter of the two). I don't like Palin, her debate was better than expectations, but lets be honest, they weren't really that high to start off with. What I'm trying to say is this: neither of these two men are going to be able to get done what the American people want, either that's because we want too much that can't be done by one term or because the Senate/Congress is so split right now, nothing will ever be passed.

This government needs to stop playing the party game and decide on things that are best for the country, not that party or individual. Some things will never be decided on and agreed with, and that's OK, but things like the war, the economy, etc., should be agreeable topics. We can't stay in a war forever and its time that country's military took over (yes yes I know that every day they do just that, but why is this taking so long, I think its just a reluctance to relinquish control). The economy needs to be fixed, of course. They should regulate companies more and their CEOs, those are the guys that are driving them into the ground and having us, the taxpayers, bail them out for it. And more!

One man will not solve all our problems. As soon as America recognizes that, we can move forward with this election thinking, "Who can set us up for the coming years, not try to bail us out with everything now?"

You are absolutely right. Mabey we should run for President and Vice..., just kidding, LOL. I do not belong to a political party and sometimes I wish America did not have political parties. I wish George Washington would have had his way and not let Congress split into political parties. Unlike today, back in the early nineties, the presidential debates had some of the independent candidates. Now there is only Republican and Democrat parties represented. No offense to anyone in those political parties. :mp::flag:

[PhoenixCadet]

My perfect idea for a "debate" would simply be - hand the two candidates a stack of cards with the topics on them, and let them simply discuss and debate between themselves.

This'll show both thier sides, as well as their debating / arguing skills, without use of a moderator. I don't particularly care for moderation, especially after the VP debate in which it was widely know the moderator was an open supporter of Obama and even wrote a book about him. That ain't fair....

-PC

[El Supremo]

It would be nice if the Falconist party would grow fast enough to actually produce a candidate on the scale against the mainstream parties.

[PhoenixCadet]

It would be nice if the Falconist party would grow fast enough to actually produce a candidate on the scale against the mainstream parties.

In reading a bit about them just now, it would be nice, but in reality, I hate to say it, but dream on. (Didn't mean that towards you directly.) I mean that in the sense that, if a "third party" that's of the larger variety such as the Green Party can't even elect one of their own (Nader) after all these years, a "third third" party definitely wouldn't happen.

YMMV.

-PC

[El Supremo]

In reading a bit about them just now, it would be nice, but in reality, I hate to say it, but dream on. (Didn't mean that towards you directly.) I mean that in the sense that, if a "third party" that's of the larger variety such as the Green Party can't even elect one of their own (Nader) after all these years, a "third third" party definitely wouldn't happen.

YMMV.

-PC

If by some miracle they got Steven Colbert to join them, then they'd have Colbert Nation's backing, and then, just maybe they might have a chance. Or at least they would actually have a voice.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

This is pretty much my reply (and to start discussion) to a topic posted in the adult portion of the forum.

Basically, Howard Stern and his boys went to Harlem, and talked to three black people about why they support Obama, whilst purposefully attributing McCain's policies and VP pick.

They all backed them up, although Obama's stance is the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Now, I have one thing to ask:

How many cadets believe that every African-American is voting for Obama just becuase he is a person of color?

Also, I cannot say how many times I've been called a "sell-out" because I don't support Obama. Man... now I believe that African-Americans deserve to be called "nigger" (meaning ignorant person) because most of us are ignorant... makes me sick...

So, any other views?

[PhoenixCadet]

Basically, Howard Stern and his boys went to Harlem, and talked to three black people about why they support Obama, whilst purposefully attributing McCain's policies and VP pick.

Here's a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbH9IYirD0

[flyBoy2010]

How many cadets believe that every African-American is voting for Obama just becuase he is a person of color?


I don't believe every African-American is voting for Obama just because he is black. My school is about 44% black, 44% white, and 8% other. Out of the black students, they are split about 50/50. My personal opinion is that economics is playing a bigger role than race. More people from the lower and middle class are Obama supporters and more people from the upper class are McCain supporters. This doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, but the race has left race behind, if you get my meaning.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Perhaps. In my school, the opposite is the case. Out of every African-American, they all support Obama, plainly because he's black. Astonishingly, many European-Americans have jumped on the Obama bandwagon... (again, because he's "gangsta")

[PhoenixCadet]

...many European-Americans have jumped on the Obama bandwagon... (again, because he's "gangsta")

I heard some lady on the radio earlier say she's voting for Obama because "he's sexy". :sleepy:

[TruBlu]

Anyone catch the debate last night? Overall, I thought it was a little better than the last (probably because I believe McCain did better this time). I really loved the "I am not President Bush! If you wanted to run against him, you should have run four years ago." I man, I loved it.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

So, as we all should know, former General and Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama, stating more or less that he was more suited to handle the nation's economic problems.

How many of you agree with his endorsement, how many of you disagree, and please explain why. I'll state my position and reasoning later..\

[ang1sgt]

Good Question and one that needs asking here.

BUT...

When you pose a questions such as this one, YOU should really be the first one to make your opinion be heard. Obviously you have a point to share with us on this or you would not have asked it. So...Give it a go!

[TruBlu]

So, as we all should know, former General and Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama, stating more or less that he was more suited to handle the nation's economic problems.

How many of you agree with his endorsement, how many of you disagree?

I don't agree with his endorsement. For one, neither of them are REALLY qualified when it comes to economics, but that's why they have an administration. The economy, environment, and the war are our nations biggest three concerns at the moment. Obama, being a democrat, comes through as a very environmental oriented guy, but hes a "flip flopper" (look at his position on off shore drilling, first hes staunchly apposed and now he wants to look into it). McCain, has at least been constant in his positions. When it comes to the military, its a no brainier as to who is more qualified. And that leaves the economy open ended, and both economic plans have strengths and weaknesses, but I can promise you all that McCain or Obama did not come up with their economic plans alone.

And this is not related to either candidate, but WHY ARE WE NOT USING NUCLEAR POWER AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF ENERGY?!?!?!?!?!

[SlightlyCatholic]

WHY ARE WE NOT USING NUCLEAR POWER AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF ENERGY?!?!?!?!?!

People are afraid of things like this:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

Things like the Chernobyl disaster destroy confidence in nuclear power, however clean it may be and regardless of the fact that we operate nuclear power plants in our aircraft carriers. The specter of a nuclear disaster is simply too much for a lot of Americans to handle. Even though there have been many advances in nuclear power and disaster prevention, I personally don't want a nuclear power plant near my neighborhood...the prospect of what could happen outweighs the benefits of nuclear power. Again, that's just my opinion, but many Americans simply don't want anything to do with nuclear power plant because of what can happen should things go terribly wrong.

[ang1sgt]

Sounds like a candidate for a new thread: Nuclear Power....
Let us not derail the current thread here folks.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Well TruBlu, I actually agree with Powell's endorsement. Although I'm a McCain supporter (in terms of policy, such as pro-life and the like), I do believe that Obama's economic plan is way better than his.

[PhoenixCadet]

...I do believe that Obama's economic plan is way better than his.

Care to explain why? It's usually custom to give an explaination, rather than simply saying "I think this, or I think that".

I personally think his (Obama's) economical plan is wacked. He's promising too much, and it just doesn't seem that he'll be able to keep up. I also highly disagree with his plan only to tax those making over 250k. That screams "Robin Hood" to me. "Take from the rich, give to the poor."

And before anyone jumps down my throat - my family makes about 150k less than his 250k mark.

-PC

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

McCain vs. Obama:

McCain's plan:

Keep taxes the same on smaller businesses, while lowering taxes in big business. Also, he's going to lower trade regulations (which means that lower quality goods will come in, while we ship our goods out.) and he's going to "tell" the oil companies that our dependence will come to an end. (Okay... they know for a fact that we'll still need their oil, even to make Ethanol and other biofuels). Also, he's going to take the tax off of gas for all of summer (great, you do know that out of that tax, .5 cents, or something along the lines of that, from every gallon goes to the Government, right?). Oh, get this, he's going to use the money gained from the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the deficit... aren't we losing money?

Anyway, moving on: Okay, he's going to reform the government (very good), and look at ways to streamline and get rid of programs that are just wasting money. (Very good). He's also going to work towards building nuclear power plants (On average, they cost 3 billion USD to build, 300 million to decommission, and then, we don't make enough money off of disposing the waste (.02 cents per megawatt for disposing the waste while Sweden is .13 cents). Then, it costs $5,000 USD per Kilowatt to build and five years to complete a 2nd-generation reactor. But, moving away from nuclear power...

McCain is going to give each American family 5000 dollars in medical insurance... although as shown on 30 days, it practically costs 1000 dollars for a man and a woman to even visit the hospital.

Now... let’s go to Obama:

To help American families pay bills, he's going to enact a Windfall profits tax on Oil Companies (Awesome, they make too much anyway) so that 1000 dollars can be given to families that are having trouble.
To jumpstart the economy, Obama is going to use 50 billion dollars (25 billion to states to prevent cuts in health, education, housing, etc. and the other 25 billion for education, as well as roads and bridges.)

Now, to offset the payroll tax, he's going to offer 500 dollars per person or $1000 dollars per family to eliminate income tax on 10 million Americans. (There are 300 million of us, just to remind you...) Also, eliminate income taxes on seniors making less than 50,000, and simplify tax filings (which will actually save Americans 2 billion dollars).

Now, here comes some good stuff.

Obama's going to end tax breaks for Companies that import jobs overseas (Why have them pay less if they won't let us work for them?), and reward Companies that keep their jobs here.

Now, to make 5,000,000 jobs, Obama and Biden are going to use 150 billion dollars (invested in ten years) to advance the research on biofuels and the like, and so, since so much is being poured into it, they're going to need some people to work on it.

Now, as stated earlier, Obama is going to offer 500 dollars to every American (1000 per family). Also, for small businesses, he's going to end the capital gains tax on small businesses and start-up companies, along with a ton of other tax breaks and the like on families making less than 50,000 dollars a year.

So, I'd have to go with Obama on this one...


Now, as I've stated before, plans that look good on paper may not work out well in real life.

So, if anyone else wants to explain why McCain's is better, please post. It may sway my opinon, and maybe others.

[mtnsldr]

I'm assuming you have sources for this information that you can cite for us...

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Sources:

For each economic plan: Each Candidates offical site
For the nuclear reactors: Nuclearinfo.net, http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
For the medical cost: 30 days

[TheLegalShark]

One of my biggest concerns is which candidate's policies would lead to the creation of more quality jobs.* I am more comfortable with Obama's plan as he invests in energy creation. This is would likely create jobs at all levels of the spectrum from researchers to janitors. I also like the idea of lowering taxes on small businesses, which can be the lifeblood in areas like where I grew up.

My concern with McCain's plan is his concern with lowering taxes on corporations, while not doing the same for small businesses. He also favors another free trade agreement, something that I believe will increase corporate profits at the expense of workers. I think the result will be the creation of more low paying, low quality jobs while more higher paying jobs are outsourced overseas.

These issues concern me because I am a college graduate (BA) from an area where the great majority of the jobs are in the low level of the service sector. This has lead to a brain drain in the area where most college grads and skilled workers simply pack up and leave for because there are not enough jobs at their level.

*I define a quality job as one that is full time, pays a living wage, offers the possibility of advancement and comes with some type of benefit package. A quality job is not one that pays minimum wage or just above, is part time, and lacks advancement opportunity and benefits. This pretty much fits most of the service sector jobs that are being created now.

[Billyd]

Have any of you noticed that we had economic growth from 2001 through the elections of 2006 even with the war? It was after the Democrats took over both houses of Congress that gas prices started going through the roof, people like Representative Maxine Walters started talking about the government taking over private enterprises? Did you stop to think that the raise in minimum wage contributed to the number of new jobless claims?

While the President of the United States has policies, he needs the Congress to get them implemented.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

True...

But, don't the policies of a President, his Cabinet, and the Senate usually take eight to ten years to fully become apparent?

[Billyd]

True...

But, don't the policies of a President, his Cabinet, and the Senate usually take eight to ten years to fully become apparent?

No the President's Cabinet are his advisers and do not form policy, only implement it (actually more complicated than that, but I think you get the idea).

Rather than me give you the answer, dig out your handy copy of the Constitution of the United States and read who is responsible for what. But keep this in mind, while President McCain may want to lower taxes, he will need the support of Congress to do so.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

True... my mistake.

[flyBoy2010]

On thing I have learned from my parents and the adults around me is that the president doesn't deal with economic problems created by his policies, but correcting those created by the previous term. In other words, things like that generally take 4-6 years to become apparent.

[TruBlu]

On thing I have learned from my parents and the adults around me is that the president doesn't deal with economic problems created by his policies, but correcting those created by the previous term. In other words, things like that generally take 4-6 years to become apparent.

Or more. I think I've said this 5 or 6 times in this thread alone, but no single president in a single term will be able to "fix" or completely change the policies that we currently undertake. No matter who we elect, the change will not be immediate or at all as it is not the president's final decision.

[flyBoy2010]

It is the president's job to deal with the last president's mistakes or successes, then all of his mistakes are dealt with by the next president. It's a never ending cycle.

[TruBlu]

It is the president's job to deal with the last president's mistakes or successes, then all of his mistakes are dealt with by the next president. It's a never ending cycle.

Maybe we should be communist? I hear a Utopian Society would be nice but is never attainable. Things in this world are not perfect, but maybe that's because we will never fully agree on everything. What I'm saying is that no matter what, people will find flaws in the presidency. Those flaws are entirely up to that person, some people see the motive for war as a flaw, others believe that it was defense. See what I'm saying? No matter what decision is made, there are at least two sides. That is why there are "mistakes" and "successes."

[flyBoy2010]

I definitely don't think the world is perfect. I think it is interesting that in today's world, for a policy to have a large scale effect, you need to give it 5+ years. By then you have a new president to clean up if it didn't work.

[Armed Drill Addict]

That means that if Obama is elected then he's going to try and fight and change everything Bush has done to appease the democrats and that will cause our country to go from pottentially F***ed to worse.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Obama's Plan To Disarm The U.S.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Defense Policy: In the middle of a war on two fronts, Barack Obama plans to gut the military. He also wants to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. And he wants to keep you in the dark about it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Election 2008 | Military & Defense


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Obamatons of the mainstream media have failed to report one of the most chilling campaign promises thus far uttered by the presumptive Democrat nominee for president.

He made it before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.

In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting. Here is a transcript:

"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.

"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

"I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

"Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."

You can bet that Obama will not make this sweeping indictment of our security forces again as he tries to move to the center in the general election. But this is what he thinks, and this is what he plans to do.

His campaign Web site doesn't list a separate category for military or defense under "Issues." But search shows near-identical language there regarding nuclear weapons.

His plan, needless to say, is frighteningly irresponsible given the world threats.

While there is fat in the defense budget, defense spending both as a share of GDP and the total federal budget are still at historically low levels, despite the war.

And while cutting fat out of the defense budget is a worthy goal, Obama would cut beyond fat to bone.

Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from "obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficit-reduction."

On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.

Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.

Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.

Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea threaten nuclear madness, and Osama bin Laden dreams of unleashing a nuclear 9/11 on America.

In contrast, John McCain has vowed: "We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies."

We've been down this road before. President Clinton pursued a denuclearization program, including his 1995 pledge to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it led to him kicking open our nuclear labs to the Chinese, who proceeded to steal our warhead secrets and strengthen their own arsenal.

Like the Ben & Jerry's crowd that supports him, Obama believes "real" national security is "humanitarian foreign aid" — essentially using our troops as international meals-on-wheels in Africa.

We've been down that road before, too, in Somalia and elsewhere. Thanks, but we don't need a third Clinton, or a second Carter, term.


He's gonna get rid of the F-22, the V-22, DDG-1000 program, the Virginia Class Sub, and other crucial military projects.

Am I the ONLY one that sees something wrong with this? :devil:

[TruBlu]

I don't like him, not at all. I think I found the video that you were talking about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E). Its always good to actually hear and see it from the source sometimes, so I figured I would add this in.

What really gets me is this: a world without nuclear weapons. Sure its a great idea, I'm not kidding, but this isn't some Utopian world, nor will it ever be. Have Russia give up their missiles that pretty much bankrupted their country years ago? You've got to be kidding me! Oh and us giving up our missiles, hes joking right?

How 'bout those missile defense systems? You know the ones for protection against enemy missiles, yeah we don't need them...

But it all makes since right? We can defend ourselves from military forces with a weakened military and some "better" word choice.

Does anyone here claim that him doing any of this military undercutting will bring about any good? I'd like to hear that opinion because I really can't understand it myself and would really wish to be enlightened.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Well, in order for his other plans, you need the cash from somewhere.

Why not cut the military? (No, I don't believe that.)

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Alright, so, this is what I'm trying to figure out: In the fundamentals, what is wrong with Communism? In the fundamentals, there is nothing that I can find wrong with Marx's doctrine. What I find wrong is how people use the system that is set up and abuse it for their own benefit, as Humans do.

Heck, some of the planks of the Communist Manifesto are in use in our society!

[CAPSmith]

Communism: "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

So, per the very definition of the word, people are a necessary part of this equation - so you can't just leave them out. It's nice to forget reality, but at some point you have to address it.

There are many people who think that creating a "paridise on earth" is noble and great, however, they fail to think about whether or not it is actually good.

The communist doctrine sates "high productivity, from each according to his ability, to each according ot his need."

This hinges on two principles: (1)Common ownership of production materials and (2) Distribution of products according to need.

To set this foundation you must first remove all all forms of private ownership. However, for that to happen, the party must sieze control of everything, which then grants "the party" control over all production.

The second part "to each person according to his need" means that no matter how much work or effort someone puts in, they can get whatever they want and how much they want. It is favored by those who aren't going to do much in the first place.

The communist doctrine is a cover for "production at the whim of the communist party." It is the antithesis of freedom and hard work.

[devin0116]

I think communisims best point is that the production of everyhting is owned by the government. So basically no Government contracting to civillian companies. But, Communism is only good on paper as we can see with the Vietnamese, N. Korean, Russian, and Chinese economies. Obama is in my opinion, a fool. Cut military funding?? I have no problem with pulling out of Iraq because our economic state can't afford all that money going to something we don't have to do. But everything else he proposes is crazy. Hopefully I will be able to afford to go to college because i hope im not in the military for Obama's term(s). Am I the only one who gets a sickening feeling that Obama is going to disappoint everyone??

[CAPSmith]

I think communisims best point is that the production of everything is owned by the government.

This doesn't create an environment of progress or independent thinking. That is not a good point.

It is our independence, strong will, sense of competition and drive that has enabled this country to surpass every known civilization in the history of the world.

Communism is the antithesis of the human spirit. Being able to make your own decisions, create your own destiny and work towards your own dreams and ambitions is what makes us who we are.

[devin0116]

This is Communisms best point, not a good point compared to other governments