McCain's Speech

[RobInKuwait]

I liked it. The change part was refreshing. Anyone else?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Long. Still tough watching him give a speech. Its just not his thing but I thought it had substance, was more positive than any candidates speech in this election and I thought he ended well.


The parts about character were moving and he did better than I expected but one thing is for sure...he won't win based off his speech giving ability.


I've also never heard a candidate criticize his own party in an acceptance speech which I thought was refreshing.

 

[atjnutrition2]

For McCain I thought it was a good speech. Everyone knows that he is not great at scripted speeches. He ended it very strong. Regardless of your politics I think anyone would have to admit that he is sincere in his beliefs and not afraid to stand up for them.

 

[yeahright]

Mediocre.

 

[AE14]

for him it was good. I was surprised to see him criticize his own party as well, which I personally liked seeing, but I am curious if it will have an impact on the base. Also, not a lot of specifics given about the economy, which is still issue #1 for most people.

 

[CryingEmo]

I think it's great how they exploited the troops for political gain as if the the republicans have a monopoly on being patriotic

Let's wrap ourselves in the flag and do whatever we want. Question our motives? You must be unpatritriotic! God bless this and that, and the troops are great, so vote for us = 90% of the RNC content so far.

Yes, we have a many great freedoms, however it's frowned upon if you try to exersize any of them, like freedom of assembly or freedom of speech.

 

[Saurabh]

As a non-American who by definition is neutral I found McCain and Palin's speech completely out of whack with reality.

Take McCain for instance. The man kept yapping - Fight, fight, fight. Fight for what?? Did he take a step back and wonder that of the last 28 years(since 1980) Republicans have been in power for 20 of these(2 times for Reagan, Bush Jr, once for Bush Sr). And the other 8 years that Democrats were in power, United States was actually rolling in budget surplus and goodwill around the world??

What I would have loved would have been to see McCain come out and say - Look we have done a few mistakes in past, including Iraq. Our economy is tanking. India/China are coming up excellently. Our stature in the world is diminishing. Gas prices and real estate is making life miserable for everyone. But the buck stops now. I shall learn from the mistakes of my party and make sure we turn things around.

Instead what he, and his mate Palin, did was to come out swinging as if it was the Democrats who has brought USA down to its knees.

What makes me greatly apprehensive is the sheer divisiveness in USA plitics. It appears Republicans will support their party(same for Democrats) no matter how wrong they are! It is almost as if the ability to differentiate between right and wrong doesnt matter anymore. Most of Americans are biased, and quite aware of it. And most Americans are playing their part in destroying their great country..only they arent aware of that.

xxx

 

[DaTruthMMA]

What I would have loved would have been to see McCain come out and say - Look we have done a few mistakes in past, including Iraq. Our economy is tanking. India/China are coming up excellently. Our stature in the world is diminishing. Gas prices and real estate is making life miserable for everyone. But the buck stops now. I shall learn from the mistakes of my party and make sure we turn things around.

Instead what he, and his mate Palin, did was to come out swinging as if it was the Democrats who has brought USA down to its knees.

What makes me greatly apprehensive is the sheer divisiveness in USA plitics. It appears Republicans will support their party(same for Democrats) no matter how wrong they are! It is almost as if the ability to differentiate between right and wrong doesnt matter anymore. Most of Americans are biased, and quite aware of it. And most Americans are playing their part in destroying their great country..only they arent aware of that.

xxx

yes that would be the ideal thing wouldn't it? i've found that over the years people in politics are less likely to accept or admit their mistakes and serve a public apology. i think mccain did a great job in his speech considering the fact that he sucks at it. i had a problem with palin though, she came off as a *b*tch* for lack of a better word.
i would want obama to win to see if things do change. i want to see whether democrats can really change things now and bring prosperity to our economy. if so, i would switch parties.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

As a non-American who by definition is neutral I found McCain and Palin's speech completely out of whack with reality.[/quote[ Boy does that take the cake.


Take McCain for instance. The man kept yapping - Fight, fight, fight. Fight for what?? Did he take a step back and wonder that of the last 28 years(since 1980) Republicans have been in power for 20 of these(2 times for Reagan, Bush Jr, once for Bush Sr). And the other 8 years that Democrats were in power, United States was actually rolling in budget surplus and goodwill around the world??

Good will? We we're bombed 8 times.

A budget surplus means absolutely nothing to the American people. This notion that the national debt or surplus actually effects you is a myth. Clinton got a surplus by cutting defense spending by 60%. THATS IT!

There was no broad economic plan that he enacted and most of the increase revenue that he received was the result of the Bush tax increases. "Read my lips, no new taxes". Wrong, he taxed..pissed off his base and created more revenue for the federal government. Clinton benefits the first 4 years of that increase.

This notion that Clinton actually did something with the economy is a complete myth. Economic ebbs and flows have almost nothing to do with any President unless he either raises taxes or lowers them. Other than that, he has almost zero control.

What I would have loved would have been to see McCain come out and say - Look we have done a few mistakes in past, including Iraq.

He doesn't believe that.

Our economy is tanking.

Right, we have positive GDP and its tanking? Its called an election year. Now do you think you will hear how that economy is tanking from Democrats if Obama is elected? Think again.

Look at the actual numbers instead of talking points.

India/China are coming up excellently. Our stature in the world is diminishing.

Its called globalization. The notion that you are going to keep Asia in the 5th century is not only ignorant, but borders on the isolationist train of thought that got us into trouble so many other times throughout history.

Gas prices and real estate is making life miserable for everyone.

Did you not listen to him talk about drilling?

Last time I checked, Pelosi refused to even have a vote about drilling. She wouldn't even let people debate the issue.

I shall learn from the mistakes of my party and make sure we turn things around.

As many commmentators reported, its the first time they've ever heard someone criticize their own party.

Instead what he, and his mate Palin, did was to come out swinging as if it was the Democrats who has brought USA down to its knees.

It IS the RNC...its not a State of the Union speech.

What makes me greatly apprehensive is the sheer divisiveness in USA plitics. It appears Republicans will support their party(same for Democrats) no matter how wrong they are! It is almost as if the ability to differentiate between right and wrong doesnt matter anymore. Most of Americans are biased, and quite aware of it. And most Americans are playing their part in destroying their great country..only they arent aware of that.

xxx

Agree foir the most part.

 

[Saurabh]

Good will? We we're bombed 8 times.

Bombed 8 times? Like how.

And while you are at it, can you care to elaborate how many times USA supported militias have bombed around the world. Afganistan is a great example. CIA supported Afganistanis jehadis when it suited their interest. Even today CIA considers it a great success and completely fail to realize that its (mis)adventure helped 911 to happen.

A budget surplus means absolutely nothing to
the American people. This notion that the national debt or surplus actually effects you is a myth. Clinton got a surplus by cutting defense spending by 60%. THATS IT!

That probably sums up your knowledge, or lack thereof. I find it hard to beleive that a sane educated person thinks Budget surplus means nothing. You may be happy being in debt, I sure am not.

This notion that Clinton actually did something with the economy is a complete myth. Economic ebbs and flows have almost nothing to do with any President unless he either raises taxes or lowers them. Other than that, he has almost zero control.

Lets keep it simple.

In the end Clinton has surplus on his side while Bush has sank the country into debt(that too from China and Saudi Arabia). Enough said.

Its called globalization. The notion that you are going to keep Asia in the 5th century is not only ignorant, but borders on the isolationist train of thought that got us into trouble so many other times throughout history.

Wow! Thats the lamest excuse ever.

This is NOT the first time Asia is developing. Japan grew, South Korea grew. Did that coincide with USA's demise? Errr no. But this time it is. Make no mistakes that USA has a tough fight at hand. Why? BEcause the trillion that it spent in Iraq could have been spent at home.

That all said if you dont care for your country fair enough man. It will only benefit other countries and not USA. :thumbsup:

 

[Rugger]

Bombed 8 times? Like how.

And while you are at it, can you care to elaborate how many times USA supported militias have bombed around the world. Afganistan is a great example. CIA supported Afganistanis jehadis when it suited their interest. Even today CIA considers it a great success and completely fail to realize that its (mis)adventure helped 911 to happen.

Yeah, we helped stop communism and those damned russians by giving weapons and stinger missiles to Afghanis who were being massacred. Man what a terrible decision! If only we have a genie that could predict 17 years the future.


That probably sums up your knowledge, or lack thereof. I find it hard to beleive that a sane educated person thinks Budget surplus means nothing. You may be happy being in debt, I sure am not.

LOL. You need to do some learning, cheif. You've got a lot to learn about the supposed 'surplus' we had under clinton.



In the end Clinton has surplus on his side while Bush has sank the country into debt(that too from China and Saudi Arabia). Enough said.

See, the thing is, when you give away money for 8 years and expand every ENTITLEMENT program, once you stop doing that, the money has to come from somewhere.

Wow! Thats the lamest excuse ever.

This is NOT the first time Asia is developing. Japan grew, South Korea grew. Did that coincide with USA's demise? Errr no. But this time it is. Make no mistakes that USA has a tough fight at hand. Why? BEcause the trillion that it spent in Iraq could have been spent at home.

Do you have any idea how much money and influence the US had in the expanding and growth of SK and Japan? Any idea on how many trillions of dollars we gave each of them? My favorite part is how people actually try and tell eachother that the war in Iraq was unnecessary Saddam had and has used weapons of mass destruction, massacred hundreds of thousands of people because of their religion. Oh yeah, **** them right? Then they turn around and cry about Darfur because we don't do as much as they'd like. Give me a break

:food:

 

[Jayhawkk]

What I would have loved would have been to see McCain come out and say - Look we have done a few mistakes in past, including Iraq. Our economy is tanking. India/China are coming up excellently. Our stature in the world is diminishing. Gas prices and real estate is making life miserable for everyone. But the buck stops now. I shall learn from the mistakes of my party and make sure we turn things around.

Yeah, sounds unbiased... by definition.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Bombed 8 times? Like how.

You do understand the first WTC bombing was in 1993? USS Cole, US bombing embassies in Kenya/Tanzania, Movenpick Hotel and Goldmour HOtel to eliminate US soldiers coming back fomr Somalia, Communications center for Saudi National Guard to kill Amefrican miltary officers, etc...

Want anymore?

And while you are at it, can you care to elaborate how many times USA supported militias have bombed around the world. Afganistan is a great example. CIA supported Afganistanis jehadis when it suited their interest. Even today CIA considers it a great success and completely fail to realize that its (mis)adventure helped 911 to happen.

And this is a result of what administration?

That probably sums up your knowledge, or lack thereof. I find it hard to beleive that a sane educated person thinks Budget surplus means nothing. You may be happy being in debt, I sure am not.

You show how completely ignorant you are in terms of running anything in terms of business. You blindly follow talking points form political leaders who have zero clue about running a business while you fail to recognize that no matter if you have a budget or surplus the American people don't see one red cent of it. The same argument was used in the 1990's and what effect did it have on the American public? None.

And I'm not in debt. I run a profitable business. Do you?

In the end Clinton has surplus on his side while Bush has sank the country into debt(that too from China and Saudi Arabia). Enough said.

And please tell me what he did to create this surplus or are you going to keep it simple?

You do understand that for 6 out of they 8 years during the Clinton years Congress was controlled by the Republicans. Did they do it? And if so what did they do?

Keep it simple? That's all you do.

Wow! Thats the lamest excuse ever.

I'm sorry if you think reality is lame. You show just how completely clueless you are when it comes to economic changes that globalization have caused.

This is NOT the first time Asia is developing. Japan grew, South Korea grew. Did that coincide with USA's demise?

Actually in the 80's, it did hinder the auto industry by a large margin and was the reason for the large increase in Japanese industrial expansion in the southeast US and the Delcine in jobs from the midwest. Care to try again?

Plus, comparing Japan to the China and India which have the largest populations in the world just shows have completely ignorant you are.

You have the biggest increase and shift form an agrarian society to an industrial one in China that its ever seen. I'd like to know how the US president is going to stop that.

Errr no. But this time it is. Make no mistakes that USA has a tough fight at hand. Why? BEcause the trillion that it spent in Iraq could have been spent at home.

Could have but never would have. Did Clinton spend that money? Yep..what happened? Rampant fraud in government run programs to which he then decreased the amount substationally and put it back into defense spending in his second term. Read history much?

That all said if you dont care for your country fair enough man. It will only benefit other countries and not USA. :thumbsup:

Care about my country? What planet are you on and what pipe are smoking at the same time?

 

[Hank Vangut]

i find it strange how mccain's face doesn't move when he talks.
then when he stops talking, he gives a creepy smile.
his movements are also slightly robotic looking.

i know this has nothing to do with how good of a president he might be. but for many americans, this is the type of thing people base their vote on. lol.

 

[slow-mun]

i find it strange how mccain's face doesn't move when he talks.
then when he stops talking, he gives a creepy smile.
his movements are also slightly robotic looking.

i know this has nothing to do with how good of a president he might be. but for many americans, this is the type of thing people base their vote on.

Its Botox.

 

[Hank Vangut]

Its Botox.

ahhhh....for public image, i guess actually looking 72 isn't a good thing either.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

i find it strange how mccain's face doesn't move when he talks.
then when he stops talking, he gives a creepy smile.

Yeha he does do that forced smile pretty bad.

his movements are also slightly robotic looking.

Lot of that has to due with his injuries in Vietnam. He can't really raise his hands over his shoulders because his bones were never set properly. He basically has to move his whole upper body at once.

 

[atjnutrition2]

Its Botox.

Actually, it's spending 5 years as a POW

 

[Hank Vangut]

Lot of that has to due with his injuries in Vietnam. He can't really raise his hands over his shoulders because his bones were never set properly. He basically has to move his whole upper body at once.

wow, he's one tough bastard!!!
i guess that makes poking fun of him on that point off limits.
can't really tease a POW about the injuries he sustained while serving our country.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

wow, he's one tough bastard!!!
i guess that makes poking fun of him on that point off limits.
can't really tease a POW about the injuries he sustained while serving our country.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsckD9trn4"]YouTube - John McCain: Courageous Service[/ame]

pretty good bio.

 

[Usf97j4x4]

I thought it was ok but I just cant seem to believe him as sincere.

Bush, although a dumbass for the most part, was very sincere.

 

[Rugger]

Bush is a true politician. McCain isn't.

McCain is a bonafide hardass-prick. Seeing him try to be sincere is painful to watch and all of the scripted "pause....smile" moments are brutal.

About time the republicans get a true hard ass, though.

 

[AE14]

Bush is a true politician. McCain isn't.

McCain is a bonafide hardass-prick. Seeing him try to be sincere is painful to watch and all of the scripted "pause....smile" moments are brutal.

About time the republicans get a true hard ass, though.

I will say this, the smiles are a tad creepy. I agree, he is a tough SOB and deserves a tremendous amount of respect for what he gave for his country. On a side, does it always look like he is grabbing someone's a$$ when he puts his arm around them b/c of the shoulder issues?

 

[Saurabh]

You do understand the first WTC bombing was in 1993? USS Cole, US bombing embassies in Kenya/Tanzania, Movenpick Hotel and Goldmour HOtel to eliminate US soldiers coming back fomr Somalia, Communications center for Saudi National Guard to kill Amefrican miltary officers, etc...

Good now we are talking.

All the incidents mentioned have origin in 1 part of the world. Here is what I want you to tell me:

a) What has USA's role been in this part of the world.

Please clear yourself so that there is no assumption from my side.

You show how completely ignorant you are in terms of running anything in terms of business. You blindly follow talking points form political leaders who have zero clue about running a business while you fail to recognize that no matter if you have a budget or surplus the American people don't see one red cent of it. The same argument was used in the 1990's and what effect did it have on the American public? None.

Yes try to wiggle out of it now.

Budget surplus is good news for a country, debt is NOT. You can not defend DEBT in anyway. Specially if you belong to Republican school of thought who insist on financial conservatism. You sure you know what you are talking about?

And I'm not in debt. I run a profitable business. Do you?

My bio was in one of the threads on USP Labs, check it out. Dont think I need to answer further details on the subject.

Actually in the 80's, it did hinder the auto industry by a large margin and was the reason for the large increase in Japanese industrial expansion in the southeast US and the Delcine in jobs from the midwest. Care to try again?

Thats hilarious!

You are completely clueless. In the 80s the Auto industry was hindered because?? Because of the oil crisis in middle east in late 70s and Japanese making better cars to address it. Why would anyone buy 20 mpg Chevy when he can buy a 30 mpg Toyota.

See what I had meant in my first post about blind support?

Plus, comparing Japan to the China and India which have the largest populations in the world just shows have completely ignorant you are.

lol..Thats your response?? Where is the substance?? WHy is India and China different from Japan? Population and that is your whole argument?

You have the biggest increase and shift form an agrarian society to an industrial one in China that its ever seen. I'd like to know how the US president is going to stop that.

Simple. Learn from mistakes of past.

China embarked on road to reform. USA helped it to combat Russia(I hope you do know China and Russia share a border). Now China keeps growing, USA keeps moving factories to China and voila it is China now who has USA in debt. What have Chinese done in return? Changed labour laws? NO. Changed Environment laws? NO. Allowed USA companies to work without restrictions?? NO.

What a USA President can do is to force these laws that are valid on USA companies. Sounds fair?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Good now we are talking.

All the incidents mentioned have origin in 1 part of the world. Here is what I want you to tell me:

a) What has USA's role been in this part of the world.

Please clear yourself so that there is no assumption from my side.

I'm still waiting for you to clarify how we have peace during the Clinton years. Not only are you trying to change the subject into a more overall theme, but you are bacially ignoring your own statements.

You compared one administration to the next and now you are trying to discuss American involvement in the middle east. Pick one.


You want to talk about wiggling..you like look ****in jello right about now.

Yes try to wiggle out of it now.



Budget surplus is good news for a country, debt is NOT. You can not defend DEBT in anyway. Specially if you belong to Republican school of thought who insist on financial conservatism. You sure you know what you are talking about?

Who is defending debt? I am simply stating the effect on the public having lived through both a surplus and debt. Are you really that dense that you can't understand that?

The discussion of surplus/debt gets politicians elected. IT has absolutely no bearing on the public in the grand scheme of things. During the Clinton administration we had a surplus and paid MORE taxes. With Bush we have paid LESS taxes and have a deficit. Its all relative and are nothing but talking points that get thrown around every 10-15 years that correlated with the dollar cycle.

My bio was in one of the threads on USP Labs, check it out. Dont think I need to answer further details on the subject.

I don't care who you are or what you do. You are the one who brought personal finances into the equation while posting on the board I own

Thats hilarious!

You are completely clueless. In the 80s the Auto industry was hindered because?? Because of the oil crisis in middle east in late 70s and Japanese making better cars to address it. Why would anyone buy 20 mpg Chevy when he can buy a 30 mpg Toyota.

Are you talking yourself into circles? What exactly is your point?

Plus, Japan production thrived because of the protection status they received under tariff laws before the oil crisis ever hit. Larger cars/ truicks recieved a 34% increase in tariffs.

They then moved into building some of largest factories in the southeastern United Stated to avoid them altogerther and put even more competietion on US manufacturers when the oil crisis was over.


So when we are talking about someone being clueless, its you.

lol..Thats your response?? Where is the substance?? WHy is India and China different from Japan? Population and that is your whole argument?

Did you ignore the points about the complete overhaul of their economy from agrarian to industrial? Bueller?

China embarked on road to reform. USA helped it to combat Russia(I hope you do know China and Russia share a border).

I'm glad you looked at the map.

Now China keeps growing, USA keeps moving factories to China and voila it is China now who has USA in debt. What have Chinese done in return? Changed labour laws? NO. Changed Environment laws? NO. Allowed USA companies to work without restrictions?? NO.

US companies are not responsible for the change form an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. A US president has zero control over what China does with its own labor force.

What a USA President can do is to force these laws that are valid on USA companies. Sounds fair?

Force what laws?

 

[Saurabh]

I'm still waiting for you to clarify how we have peace during the Clinton years. Not only are you trying to change the subject into a more overall theme, but you are bacially ignoring your own statements.

No. I am trying to get to the bottom of this whole - We were bombed for 8 times - argument. I would like to hear your side of the story, in YOUR OWN WORDS, so that I dont make any assumptions. It is amply clear to most non-Americans, that USA has made wrong policy decisions over the years and so it has had to face some unfortunate incidents. However what bothers is me is this whole - We have done no wrong, still look what they did to us.

So again to avoid any misunderstandings lets get to the bottom of the discussion here. Who bombed USA 8 times and what was the cause? Please be specific.

You compared one administration to the next and now you are trying to discuss American involvement in the middle east. Pick one.

Ditto as above.

You want to talk about wiggling..you like look ****in jello right about now.

Ahhhh yes. The smart-Alec-I-will-smash-you-by-keyboard-attack. Learn to have some meat in argument kind Sir. And again, lets get to the bottom of argument, name calling wont suffice for that.

Who is defending debt? I am simply stating the effect on the public having lived through both a surplus and debt. Ar

lol..Your famous words - A budget surplus means absolutely nothing to the American people. Now that you have been caught napping you choose to go on attack(as most Republicans do anyway).

Atleast stand by what you said, defend debt or dont defend it, dont talk by both sides of your mouth.

The discussion of surplus/debt gets politicians elected. IT has absolutely no bearing on the public in the grand scheme of things. During the Clinton administration we had a surplus and paid MORE taxes. With Bush we have paid LESS taxes and have a deficit. Its all relative and are nothing but talking points that get thrown around every 10-15 years that correlated with the dollar cycle.

How can you be so dumb?? Seriously how can you?

Question for you - Budget surplus would mean Government has more money to spend. This typically would mean better roads, healthcare and all that jazz. Agree/disagree?

I don't care who you are or what you do. You are the one who brought personal finances into the equation while posting on the board I own

Hilarious! First you ask what I do, your words - I run a profitable business. Do you? And when I respond then you come out with a I-dont-care. So why did you ask in the first place ace? :lol: :lol:

Plus, Japan production thrived because of the protection status they received under tariff laws before the oil crisis ever hit. Larger cars/ truicks recieved a 34% increase in tariffs. They then moved into building some of largest factories in the southeastern United Stated to avoid them altogerther and put even more competietion on US manufacturers when the oil crisis was over.

Errrr you are becoming Republican all over again - not giving credit where its due.

Lets keep the argument simple - Japanese makers(Honda/Toyota) overtook Chrysler/GM/Ford because they made better cars. Specially more fuel-efficient vehicles. End of the discussion.

All the other arguments - tarriffs etc - would have been redundant in the end product was shitty.

So when we are talking about someone being clueless, its you.

Yes, some more name calling. I am scared now :lol:

US companies are not responsible for the change form an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. A US president has zero control over what China does with its own labor force.

And yet a USA President is willing to go after other countries (read Iraq) just on a whim that it has WMDs awesome!

Force what laws?

Have already mentioned it. US President should make CHina answerable to same laws as an American company. Else all products in US would be Made in China, which it is anyway these days.

xxx

 

[atjnutrition2]

How exactly do you propose that a U.S. president make China answer to U.S. laws?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No. I am trying to get to the bottom of this whole - We were bombed for 8 times - argument. I would like to hear your side of the story, in YOUR OWN WORDS, so that I dont make any assumptions. It is amply clear to most non-Americans, that USA has made wrong policy decisions over the years and so it has had to face some unfortunate incidents. However what bothers is me is this whole - We have done no wrong, still look what they did to us.

I don't have a "my side" You said we we're safe during the Clinton years and I have shown you to be WRONG.

You could argue the policies that go back to the shah of Iran and how that contributes to all of this. Never did I make any such statement about what was the cause, only to point out your complete ignorance of what happened in the Clinton years.

So again to avoid any misunderstandings lets get to the bottom of the discussion here. Who bombed USA 8 times and what was the cause? Please be specific.

I am not your researcher. If you want to form your own opinions about American policy while making statement and comparison of the last two administrations it would be a good idea to know what actually happened in that time period, correct?

Ditto as above.

Ditto for me as well. Have fun reading.

Ahhhh yes. The smart-Alec-I-will-smash-you-by-keyboard-attack. Learn to have some meat in argument kind Sir. And again, lets get to the bottom of argument, name calling wont suffice for that.

Well, considering you had absolutely no clue of the terrorist attacks this nation has received, I think the one wearing the meat helmet is you.

:thumbsup:

lol..Your famous words - A budget surplus means absolutely nothing to the American people. Now that you have been caught napping you choose to go on attack(as most Republicans do anyway).

LMAO....Republcian attack....

Do liberals have them? :lol:

Atleast stand by what you said, defend debt or dont defend it, dont talk by both sides of your mouth.

Actually I just did. Can you please tell what differnece the governemetn buget in the last 30 years has had on the American people other than getting someone elected?

How can you be so dumb?? Seriously how can you?

Pot, kettle, midnight black. :lol:

Question for you - Budget surplus would mean Government has more money to spend. This typically would mean better roads, healthcare and all that jazz. Agree/disagree?

See, in fantasy land where you live, yes..but as I have already shown during the Clinton years, it had no effect whatsoever on the majority of Americans.


In fact, it got worse with said programs and the American public basically paid for massive fraud. He then cut back the funding to original levels it was Bush.

Sometimes ideology trumps reality. We have been pumping more and more money into education for the past 30 years. Its gotten worse.

Hilarious! First you ask what I do, your words - I run a profitable business. Do you? And when I respond then you come out with a I-dont-care. So why did you ask in the first place ace? :lol: :lol:

Umm..actually you brought this on by assuming I was living in debt because the national debt was large. Great logic! :thumbsup:

Lets keep the argument simple - Japanese makers(Honda/Toyota) overtook Chrysler/GM/Ford because they made better cars. Specially more fuel-efficient vehicles. End of the discussion.

Sorry, its not. They were more efficient in manufacturing which for the most part made the cheaper to purchase. If you look at earlier models of the major Japanese manufacturers, their quality was not good at all but they could mass produce better than American models. Quality came later. Once again, you show have no idea what you're talking about.

All the other arguments - tarriffs etc - would have been redundant in the end product was shitty.

In other words, you weren't aware of what started the increase in Japaned imports. Thats abundantly clear.

And yet a USA President is willing to go after other countries (read Iraq) just on a whim that it has WMDs awesome!

Please put down the Kool Aid. You are now comparing Iraq to China?

Have already mentioned it. US President should make CHina answerable to same laws as an American company. Else all products in US would be Made in China, which it is anyway these days.

xxx

Wow. So now the American President should force China to enable labor laws that helps America.

I've heard it all now.

 

[Saurabh]

How exactly do you propose that a U.S. president make China answer to U.S. laws?

This is what I would do.

USA companies, and its employees, follow a code. Under the prevalent code it is almost impssible to do damages like Environmental for example. A good case is ANWAR drilling. If anyone should be doing it, it should be US companies. I wont be comfortable if a Russian company does that. American Organization are simply the best when it comes to adhering to rules and regulations. However these come at a cost, and basically adds on to the cost of end products.

China on the other hand doesnt have to worry about the costs and hence they can make the same products much cheaper. Well that and the fact that labour is cheap. My question is how does it make sense to promote trade relations with a country knowing fully well that a local product from Ohio takes about 1 dollar to make, while China does so at 20 c simply because they dont follow any rules.

As a USA President you give your local companies either the same set of rules or prevent the other country(in this case China) from basically throwing your local labour into unemployment thanks to unfair trade practices.

xxx

 

[Rugger]

This is what I would do.

USA companies, and its employees, follow a code. Under the prevalent code it is almost impssible to do damages like Environmental for example. A good case is ANWAR drilling. If anyone should be doing it, it should be US companies. I wont be comfortable if a Russian company does that. American Organization are simply the best when it comes to adhering to rules and regulations. However these come at a cost, and basically adds on to the cost of end products.

China on the other hand doesnt have to worry about the costs and hence they can make the same products much cheaper. Well that and the fact that labour is cheap. My question is how does it make sense to promote trade relations with a country knowing fully well that a local product from Ohio takes about 1 dollar to make, while China does so at 20 c simply because they dont follow any rules.

As a USA President you give your local companies either the same set of rules or prevent the other country(in this case China) from basically throwing your local labour into unemployment thanks to unfair trade practices.

xxx

The question was how is a sitting potus supposed to do that.

 

[Saurabh]

I don't have a "my side" You said we we're safe during the Clinton years and I have shown you to be WRONG.

No you are not only WRONG but you have the galls to say what I said, and then manufacture it!!

Here is what I wrote - And the other 8 years that Democrats were in power, United States was actually rolling in budget surplus and goodwill around the world??

Show me where I said Clinton and safety in the same sentence. If you can't find it, do you owe an apology of sorts here?

You could argue the policies that go back to the shah of Iran and how that contributes to all of this. Never did I make any such statement about what was the cause, only to point out your complete ignorance of what happened in the Clinton years.

I have not even BEGUN my arguments. I have simply pursued your line of thought - We were bombed 8 times - and asked you for the reasons. Thus far you have not answered that simple question. I ask again, answer that question in detail so we can pursue it further. Fair?

I am not your researcher. If you want to form your own opinions about American policy while making statement and comparison of the last two administrations it would be a good idea to know what actually happened in that time period, correct?

Sorry but with your half-baked knowledge I wouldnt even ask you to be a researcher. Not even I am drunk trust me.

I am simply asking you to put forth your thoughts so I know EXACTLY where you are coming from. I dont want any misunderstanding from my side. Thats only a decent thing to do. Now if you can not understand that simple mannerism well you have bigger problems my friend.

Those were the only valid points. I have ignored the other rants since I am not here to spend time showing who has bigger cojones. Lets keep it civil and in perspective.

Over to you.

 

[Rugger]

Clinton chose not to attack the exact, precise and absolute location of Bin Laden not once, but four times. He also balanced the budget using the medicare trust fund and cutting military spending by a whole lot; something our GOA and DOD are trying to play catch up with now.

 

[Saurabh]

Clinton chose not to attack the exact, precise and absolute location of Bin Laden not once, but four times. He also balanced the budget using the medicare trust fund and cutting military spending by a whole lot; something our GOA and DOD are trying to play catch up with now.

Sure enough that was an error in judgement that USA, and its allies, are paying dearly for the same. Wouldnt disagree with you on that.

However I do disagree with you on Military spending. The simple fact is US military spending is wayyyyyyyyy more than what it should be anyway.

In 2007:

Top ranked Military spender(USA) : About 550 billion USD

2nd ranked military spender(UK) : About 60 billion USD

3rd ranked (China) : 55 billion USD

Invalid Link Removed

4th rank (France): About 50 billion USD.

US military expense is almost 4 times the sum of 2nd/3rd/4th countries put together! Does it really need it?

By the way the projection in 2008 is perhaps even worse - Proposed U.S. military spending for FY 2008 is larger than military spending by all of the other nations in the world combined.

Invalid Link Removed

Whats your opinion on this?

xx

 

[Rugger]

Sure enough that was an error in judgement that USA, and its allies, are paying dearly for the same. Wouldnt disagree with you on that.

However I do disagree with you on Military spending. The simple fact is US military spending is wayyyyyyyyy more than what it should be anyway.

In 2007:

Top ranked Military spender(USA) : About 550 billion USD

2nd ranked military spender(UK) : About 60 billion USD

3rd ranked (China) : 55 billion USD

Invalid Link Removed

4th rank (France): About 50 billion USD.

US military expense is almost 4 times the sum of 2nd/3rd/4th countries put together! Does it really need it?

By the way the projection in 2008 is perhaps even worse - Proposed U.S. military spending for FY 2008 is larger than military spending by all of the other nations in the world combined.

Invalid Link Removed

Whats your opinion on this?

xx

We spend much more because we have much more. Our navy and Air force tower over every other nation. And yes, the money spent is justified. If we want to be a world leader we need to have the military of one.

 

[Saurabh]

We spend much more because we have much more. Our navy and Air force tower over every other nation. And yes, the money spent is justified. If we want to be a world leader we need to have the military of one.

So let me see if I get this straight. A country of 300 million population should be spending more money than the rest 7 billion plus put together. Is that your thinking?

 

[Rugger]

So let me see if I get this straight. A country of 300 million population should be spending more money than the rest 7 billion plus put together. Is that your thinking?

Mind what population has to do with it for me?

 

[Saurabh]

Mind what population has to do with it for me?

It is required to keep things in perspective.

I can understand if you say US should spent more money than say China. I can understand US should spend money than Russia. I can still understand if you say US should spend more money than China and Russia put together. But I can not understand why US should spend more money than rest of 200plus countries(as per Olympics) put together.

 

[Rugger]

It is required to keep things in perspective.

I can understand if you say US should spent more money than say China. I can understand US should spend money than Russia. I can still understand if you say US should spend more money than China and Russia put together. But I can not understand why US should spend more money than rest of 200plus countries(as per Olympics) put together.

1. Because we have more enemies
2. Because someone has to stand up to other superpowers
3. Because we have more to lose
4. Because we have more responsibility
5. Because even though people don't like us being world police, we have to protect other nations.
6. Because here in America, defense production is far more expensive than in any other tech producing nation.
etc.

Now if I had MY way, I'd close every foreign military base and never send another pair of boots anywhere without the UN's request.

 

[Jayhawkk]

No other country uses their military to support the world and their needs, like we do. I'm not talking just for wars either.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No you are not only WRONG but you have the galls to say what I said, and then manufacture it!!

Manufacturer? Yes, being bombed 8 times in the 90's is "good will". Not only were you wrong, but you showed just how clueless you are about the domestic policies we had in the 90's.

I have not even BEGUN my arguments. I have simply pursued your line of thought - We were bombed 8 times - and asked you for the reasons. Thus far you have not answered that simple question. I ask again, answer that question in detail so we can pursue it further. Fair?

And I told you to go find out yourself. Is that so hard? Are you that lazy?

Sorry but with your half-baked knowledge I wouldnt even ask you to be a researcher. Not even I am drunk trust me.

Right. So you have no clue about the terrorist attacks in 90's yet you are insulting my research abilities.

You basically make statements about the 8 years of the Clinton's yet have not even the slightest clue the domestic and foreign policies of that time period.

You simply have showed that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Not even I am drunk trust me.

Well, that explains it.

I am simply asking you to put forth your thoughts so I know EXACTLY where you are coming from. I dont want any misunderstanding from my side. Thats only a decent thing to do. Now if you can not understand that simple mannerism well you have bigger problems my friend.

Exactly where I am coming from on what?

You can't be this dense.

Those were the only valid points. I have ignored the other rants since I am not here to spend time showing who has bigger cojones. Lets keep it civil and in perspective.

Over to you.

Civil? You passed that point a long time ago. I'm also waiting on your valid points.

 

[atjnutrition2]

So let me see if I get this straight. A country of 300 million population should be spending more money than the rest 7 billion plus put together. Is that your thinking?

Have you ever stopped to consider why that spending is so high? In those numbers is included all of the spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, and other ongoing missions all over the globe. No other nation on the planet is as involved in world affairs as the United States. The military plays an integral role in that involvement. In the vast majority of those cases the role of the military is as that of a peace-keeper. The two exceptions to those cases are in Iraq and Afghanistan in which the military is used as both a peace-keeper and fighting force.

Since you seem to be so against our military spending, what would you have us do? I suppose we could pull back from our obligations across the globe and revert to a pre-WWII isolationist nation and thus save money on defense. You seem to have a problem with JP saying we were bombed eight times during Clinton's administration. He listed all eight occurrences (sp) in which U.S. interests were attacked. Only one of those occurred on U.S. soil. (the first World Trade Center bombing) There is a reason why only one occurred in the U.S.--our presence abroad which keeps those things from happening on our shores. You mention that we had international "goodwill" during the Clinton administration. Osama bin Laden did most of his recruiting in the ripe anti-U.S. atmosphere of said administration.

Another favorite argument used by those against defense spending is that it should be used for programs at home. Do you have any idea of the economic impact that would have if we dramatically slashed defense spending? The single biggest event that dragged the U.S. out of the great depression was WWII. It wasn't the "New Deal" policies, it was the dramatic rise in military spending and the jobs it created. The 550 billion which you quoted is spent mainly in the U.S. to U.S. defense contractors and manufacturers which in turn is a major driving force in the economy. Not to mention the fact that nearly every technological advance that you enjoy today was bourne out of defense research.

There is no such thing as diplomacy without the ability to substantially back up one's position.

 

[Saurabh]

1. Because we have more enemies

Then something is terribly wrong here. I doubt is the Fouding Fathers created United States so it has more enemies than any country in the world.

2. Because someone has to stand up to other superpowers

And how exactly are you standing up?? By spending like 10 times more than each one of them??? By spending more than ALL of them put together? How does that make sense.

3. Because we have more to lose

Lose? How? Explain.

4. Because we have more responsibility

No you dont. At the end of the day every country, and their citizen, of the world has equal rights and responsibility. There is no reason why USA should consider it has more responsibility than UK. Sure it sounds great to hear - Leader of the free world - but just as an American doesnt want to come across as any less of a citizen than Australian, surely he can extend the same respect to the latter as well.

5. Because even though people don't like us being world police, we have to protect other nations.

No one asks you to protect. You yourself land into those situations and then use that as an argument. Look around, half of these "police works" is not desired by localites.

6. Because here in America, defense production is far more expensive than in any other tech producing nation.

Fair argument. However defense production in USA is still very comparable to say UK and France and even here the comparison is extremely lopsided.

Now if I had MY way, I'd close every foreign military base and never send another pair of boots anywhere without the UN's request.

Then we are on the same page. No reason why USA should spend that much money, resources and effort over issues that almost always give zero return.

xx

 

[Saurabh]

Manufacturer? Yes, being bombed 8 times in the 90's is "good will". Not only were you wrong, but you showed just how clueless you are about the domestic policies we had in the 90's.

Huh! So you dont only misquote me, but upon saying that I NEVER USED CLINTON AND SAFERY IN THE SAME SENTENCE, you have problems accepting that as well.

Sure! what else to expect from a typical Red party fan.

And I told you to go find out yourself. Is that so hard? Are you that lazy?

lol...It seems you either have little clue as to what your insinuations are or are just cynical in life. Anyway, I guess I have given you enough chance to substantiate your knowledge(or lack thereof). Thanks for coming across as dumb :lol:

Right. So you have no clue about the terrorist attacks in 90's yet you are insulting my research abilities.

Yes I am going after your half-baked claim. BUT NOT BEFORE I GIVE YOU ENOUGH CHANCES TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF. This is the 4th time I have extended you the courtsey. If you dont have enough knowledge to support your views why are you getting mad at me, do yourself some favour and develop some meat in your arguments here on.

You basically make statements about the 8 years of the Clinton's yet have not even the slightest clue the domestic and foreign policies of that time period.

As mentioned in the very first post(which you obviously did NOT understand) - And the other 8 years that Democrats were in power, United States was actually rolling in budget surplus and goodwill around the world??

Prove me wrong on either of the argument.


rest all rant, rant, rant. Dismissed and thrown in the garbage.

xxx

 

[atjnutrition2]

There is a HUGE difference in how the world works and how we WISH it would work. It's easy to sit back and say we have gotten zero return until one examines why we are in the places we are and what we are looking to get out of it.

 

[Saurabh]

Have you ever stopped to consider why that spending is so high? In those numbers is included all of the spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, and other ongoing missions all over the globe. No other nation on the planet is as involved in world affairs as the United States. The military plays an integral role in that involvement. In the vast majority of those cases the role of the military is as that of a peace-keeper. The two exceptions to those cases are in Iraq and Afghanistan in which the military is used as both a peace-keeper and fighting force.

Entirely my point. Thanks for expressing it.

Does USA really need to do it? Why is USA different from say England?? I am not even comparing it with Russia say. The problem is often USA policy takes far more on its plate than is desired and ends up spending tons of money. The flip side of the argument of course is that war mongers ensures USA spends this much money so it supports their plans.

regardless this military expenditure is (amongst other things) what brought Russia down. Today with a hugely deficit budget, debts galore, does USA need to spend this much?

Since you seem to be so against our military spending, what would you have us do? I suppose we could pull back from our obligations across the globe and revert to a pre-WWII isolationist nation and thus save money on defense.

I seriously wouldnt mind that.

Lets give credit where its due. The rest of the world is not so dumb that the moment American troops pull out everything goes up in smoke. Look at history. The world survived before USA came into existence, why will it suddenly start heaping bomb all of a sudden. And I dont even mind doing it step by step, just prioritize and not open fronts left, right and center.

You seem to have a problem with JP saying we were bombed eight times during Clinton's administration. He listed all eight occurrences (sp) in which U.S. interests were attacked.

And I throw the same question at you, as I raised to him. Why did these attacks happen in the first place?

You mention that we had international "goodwill" during the Clinton administration.

Of course you did. Clinton was the most adorable US President in past quarter of a century. Much ahead of Bush Sr, and Junior, and even ahead of Reagan.

Osama bin Laden did most of his recruiting in the ripe anti-U.S. atmosphere of said administration.

And who brought Osama into existence?? Who helped propogate him? Who trained him? Who provided him ammunition? Clinton?

Another favorite argument used by those against defense spending is that it should be used for programs at home. Do you have any idea of the economic impact that would have if we dramatically slashed defense spending? The single biggest event that dragged the U.S. out of the great depression was WWII. It wasn't the "New Deal" policies, it was the dramatic rise in military spending and the jobs it created.

Dramatic slashing will affect any silo, not only military. If a NBA team slashed its Annual budget from 500 million to 5 million do you expect it to be the same? Of course not. Which is why it is done in phases.

The 550 billion which you quoted is spent mainly in the U.S. to U.S. defense contractors and manufacturers which in turn is a major driving force in the economy.

You should give more credit to US institutions than that. USA will survice very well because its institutions - right from colleges to technology industry - are the best in the busines and they shall survive.

Not to mention the fact that nearly every technological advance that you enjoy today was bourne out of defense research.

Thats what the supporters of Church say - Most modern developments started out of church.

Fact remains that the number 1 export of USA, and its lifestyle, Hollywood was NOT borne out of military. Look around - McDonalds, Entertainment, Automobiles etc - and you can see Civilian contribution.

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying Defence has not helped USA, it has helped A LOT. But I am not gonna say once support is pulled out USA shall collapse.

xxx

 

[Saurabh]

There is a HUGE difference in how the world works and how we WISH it would work. It's easy to sit back and say we have gotten zero return until one examines why we are in the places we are and what we are looking to get out of it.

I disagree.

Lets keep it simple. How many countries are in the same position as US finds itself today?

Forget same position, how many countries are even in 10% of the situation that USA is in today?

If NONE then what makes USA's responsibility more than any other country in the world?

 

[RobInKuwait]

United States was actually rolling in budget surplus and goodwill around the world??

I hear the world's goodwill and 50 bucks will get you a BJ in Amsterdam. I'm not sure how you can quantify goodwill.

We saved France. Not figuratively, not metaphorically, but with our blood sweat and tears in World War II. A few years later, US troops, stationed in France to help protect from a seemingly imminent Soviet invasion were booted out, and told to defend them from their neighbor Germany.

We did the same thing for South Korea.

We did the same thing in Afghanistan.

We tried to do the same thing for Vietnam.

We did the same thing for Kuwait.

Yes, whether right or wrong, the US is has been the world's police for the last 100 years. The rest of the ungrateful bastard nations in the world can hate us for it. Meanwhile they ignorantly curse the US while enjoying freedom from evil tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Saddam, and Osama. The US does what it deems right, regardless of what the world's appeaser's think.

International goodwill is useless, so they can sell that to someone who gives a flying ****.



And Saurabh, everything you wrote in this post has been utterly ignorant. Every person who read what you wrote is now dumber for it.

 

[Saurabh]

We saved France. Not figuratively, not metaphorically, but with our blood sweat and tears in World War II. A few years later, US troops, stationed in France to help protect from a seemingly imminent Soviet invasion were booted out, and told to defend them from their neighbor Germany.

So what is the lesson learnt here? That US defended France from Germany, then saved it from Russia and continue to save today. In other words USA has been saving France's bacon for 60 odd years.

Now the question is - How has France been treating USA? You happy with that mate?

We did the same thing for South Korea.

Nope, thats a spin. Lets call what it really was - South Korea was "saved" to ensure Communism did not spread in South Asia.

Again the question is, how is it working out? After half a century are American Forces back home or still in Korea? If in Korea then are they supposed to be till the end of time?

We did the same thing in Afghanistan.

Again, was done to ensure Russia got a bloodied face. Lets face it, America was never in love with rag tag Afganis. Only this time it fired. The very mujahideen it trained to attack Russians now trained their guns back on US/Israel nexus.

Question again - How has it worked out in Afganistan?

We tried to do the same thing for Vietnam.

Same thing. Russian angle. Atleast USA pulled out on time. And guess what - Vietnam is a country where USA has a much better relationship than say Afganistan. A lesson here maybe?

Yes, whether right or wrong, the US is has been the world's police for the last 100 years. The rest of the ungrateful bastard nations in the world can hate us for it.

lol. Yeah yeah when you can not get across your message start swearing. As the saying goes - the first part of losing debate is cussing.

And Saurabh, everything you wrote in this post has been utterly ignorant. Every person who read what you wrote is now dumber for it.

Would have no problems with that. At the end of the day I am holding my own against people who beleive "rest of the world are bastards". Atleast I have been civil to everyone here...and more knowledgable than some of you put together.

:nutkick:

 

[RobInKuwait]

At the end of the day I am holding my own against people who beleive "rest of the world are bastards".

Holding your own what. :FUfinger:

 

[AE14]

I hear the world's goodwill and 50 bucks will get you a BJ in Amsterdam. I'm not sure how you can quantify goodwill.

We saved France. Not figuratively, not metaphorically, but with our blood sweat and tears in World War II. A few years later, US troops, stationed in France to help protect from a seemingly imminent Soviet invasion were booted out, and told to defend them from their neighbor Germany.

We did the same thing for South Korea.

We did the same thing in Afghanistan.

We tried to do the same thing for Vietnam.

We did the same thing for Kuwait.

Yes, whether right or wrong, the US is has been the world's police for the last 100 years. The rest of the ungrateful bastard nations in the world can hate us for it. Meanwhile they ignorantly curse the US while enjoying freedom from evil tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Saddam, and Osama. The US does what it deems right, regardless of what the world's appeaser's think.

International goodwill is useless, so they can sell that to someone who gives a flying ****.



And Saurabh, everything you wrote in this post has been utterly ignorant. Every person who read what you wrote is now dumber for it.

you do realize that at the inception of our country the French helped us? My point being, we have been in the globocop role as you said for almost 100 years, and we are starting to feel the effects of it in a negative way.

Now, you talk about all the tyrants, however Saddam and Hitler are the only ones we truly got physical with. <Sorry, the effort to find Osama has been quite lax, as our own President has said several times "I dont care where Osama is". > So how can you talk about Mao and Stalin when we really just took a wait and see approach with Crazy Uncle Joe, and then actually ended up having a halfway decent relationship with Mao later in his life after he calmed down a bit.

What I never understood was our rationale for going after someone like Sadaam. (Hitler was a separate entity all together) Sadaam, from most intelligence reports was of no imminent danger, and there were far worse dictators on the planet. Made no sense to me in 2003 and doesnt now.