Sounds like another Clinton term...
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=178789
Printed Date: 01 January 2026 at 9:41am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sounds like another Clinton term...
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Subject: Sounds like another Clinton term...
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:11pm
|
Yeah so Obama is supposed to be for change and everything and what does he do right away? Chooses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel - Rahm Emanuel (senior advisor to Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998) as his new Chief of Staff. Thats kinda ironic. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry - John Kerry is http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081106.welectionteam06/BNStory/usElection2008/home - "actively seeking the job of secretary of state" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081106.welectionteam06/BNStory/usElection2008/home - Actually just look at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15142_Page2.html - this page for all of the possiblities for Obama's staff. Alot of them were under Clinton. |
Replies:
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:13pm
|
Another Clinton term or two sounds ok - I wish Bill had run for re-re-election. But I also think you are reading too much into this. Or, more specifically, I think you just finished watching O'Reilly. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: sporx
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:21pm
|
TERRORIST! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:27pm
You are right! Who needs to know all of that silly stuff anyways? The point is.. he road the "change wagon" the whole way to the presidency and now he just hops off like it never happened. |
Bruce Banner wrote:Posted By: Zata
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:27pm
| Why are people acting like the election hasn't happened yet? He's the next president, get over it. What is pointing any of this stuff out gonna do? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:31pm
|
I believe his "change wagon" was change from the last 8 years. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:32pm
It shows he is deceiving the public before he even moves into the White House. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:33pm
|
Does anyone else laugh when picturing Obama driving a wagon? ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:33pm
|
I would LOVE Clinton to be able to take office again. Bill, that is. If Kerry gets Secretary Of State, I may cry. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:34pm
Really? Given the assaults on the current administration...... really? ------------- ? |
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:41pm
|
great clinton cut around 8000 jobs at my place of work...yay for me...
my tax return is going to buy a few pistols and "assault" rifles. then the rest is investing in tooling and make a little more $ in my shop. ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:43pm
|
I also predict that we will see a very large cut in military funding and the closing of multiple military bases in order to fund the large amounts of money he will need for his new "no-tax and free health care" plan.-- Just what we need when the world is in chaos. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:44pm
Good ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:45pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:48pm
/fixed. |
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:48pm
|
^ you do realize that in this time of economic crisis the one safe area to get a job is government?
also the government spending while is taxing is also creating hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs? not only for government employees but suppliers as well? you say good but closing military basses will KILL most/all economy in the areas the bases are closed... ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: Gator Taco
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:49pm
Care to elaborate on how thats "good"? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/trailgator01 - last.fm |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:49pm
Are you color blind? I am pretty sure I did some red highlighting. Now die. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:51pm
|
That sounds a lot like ... ... ZOMG SOCIALISM! ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:54pm
Not to mention Clinton laid off about 272,900 jobs in the Government. Including 17,136 (15% of) workers in the Agricultural Department. 
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 9:56pm
|
In other words, he cut government expenses? Horrible. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:00pm
| Those are not expenses, those are necessities. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:00pm
|
There's some backwards logic afoot here -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:01pm
How do you know they're necessities? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:01pm
Care to elaborate? |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:02pm
Food isn't a necessity to you? Are you some kind of a robot....? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:04pm
...I'm pretty sure most of the food I get doesn't come from the government. We are not socialist. Also, How do you know they absolutely NEEDED those jobs? Are we still getting food now? Is it not after they were cut? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:04pm
|
Um... Ag Dept. employees are not farmers. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:05pm
|
Hopefully Obama won't cut jobs at the Department of Energy, because then the lights will go out.
------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:06pm
| hopeless.... |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:11pm
What's hopeless? Your arguments? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:46pm
He has been president-elect for 48 hours now. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:50pm
What are you trying to say? I'm saying that hes almost abandoning his change slogan by contradicting himself in getting officials that belonged to Clinton. Because its not change, its just going back to the old ways. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:53pm
You really don't have much to go on. |
Posted By: Project Irene
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:55pm
|
Holy crap... this one and the other 15 different forums I'm a member of are having the same excellent negative I.Q. discussions. As an 'extreme' conservative republican, all I can do is pop popcorn and laugh at both sides. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:56pm
*edit. |
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 10:59pm
|
I thought you where leaving and never coming back. ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 11:10pm
So we are going to go back to not being two wars and have a booming economy? Sounds great to me! |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 11:22pm
22nd Amendment be damned? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 11:24pm
I'm saying that of four years and three months, you are already claiming something to be a facted trend. That is a minute sample size. You would make a crappy political scientist. |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 11:26pm
|
Details. He would have won in a landslide anyway. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 11:44pm
|
In related news:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/police-called-after-obama-campaign.html - Obama doesn't pay up! Long lines, shortages of goods... Not even in office yet and it's already starting to look like the USSR.  ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 7:55am
| The lack of intelligence from certain people in this thread hurts my face. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 8:13am
Ditto. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 8:27am
|
This might be the worst thread we've have here. Ever. ------------- ? |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:48am
|
Obama was selected by one of the same machines that elects all of our presidents. He was selected by this machine to become one of the senators of Illinois, then he was selected by this machine to become their nominee for president. Sound absurd? It's not. This same machine got Hillary into the senate in New York. Never Mind the fact that she was a resident of Arkansas, and didn't have a job or residence in New York. The selected her, they campaigned for her, and they got her in. The last step would have been to have her as their (not our) presidential nominee. But something happened, it turned out that Hillary might not be a viable candidate for president. Though she was appealing to democrats, the polls indicated that she was highly disliked by independents. The machine needed a new figurehead, and they found what they were looking for in Illinois. McCain was also selected. But he was part of the machine, and had been so for a long time. He selected himself. He felt the presidency was owed to him after a lifetime of service. Never mind the fact that he was far too old to be trusted to handle such an important position. His ego, and his power in the party insured that he would be the republican candidate, consequences be damned. It's funny that people actually think that they had a choice in this election, when in fact their choices were made for them years ago. There will be no changes under Obama. He'll move the tax rate up to what it was during the Clinton era, but nothing else. He'll be a good puppet to the machine who elected him, and he'll pay back his promises to them long before he does anything of substance for the people. We should also get another thing straight. Obama is not the first "black" president. He is the first mullato president. If he's half black, and half white, he could call himself either, couldn't he? No, he can't, "Mullato" is an English word, and it defines his particular race, or mix thereof. But, to quote super conservative quack Michael Savage: "That's neither here nor there". For those who are a little uninformed here, the government was downsized during the Clinton Administration. Do you remember why? Do you remember the "Contract with America"? The policy enacted by the new Republican majorities in the house and senate which was designed to cut spending and reduce government? Democrats say that there was a surplus during the Clinton Administration, but they fail to say the the surplus came into existence because of the balanced budget amendments which were passed by the republican house and senate. They also don't mention that Clinton vetoed those measures twice before finally signing them into law (as his third veto would have been overridden). The military will not be downsized any time soon. There are too many threats around the world at the moment. And, have you wondered why the war continues to be funded year after year? even after the democrats promised to end the war after being given the majority after the last election? Because of the pork they get from military contractors. Diane Feinstein's (democrat, California) husband is a major military supplier, and many other democrats have defense contractors or military bases in there districts. Cutting back in these areas would cost their districts jobs, and insure their loss in the next election. Someone complained to me about how the governement was spending a billion dollar a pop building stealth bombers. He told me that the money would pay for a lot of college educations, community projects, and the like. I told him that each of those planes were built by Americans, and they used the money they earned from building those planes to pay their own bills, to educate their children, and whatnot. If these people were not building these planes, then they would not be working, paying their bills, taxes, or educating their children. He had no grasp on economics whatsoever, which is a universal fault among socialists and far left liberals. Where does the money come from? From taxes. Who pays taxes? People and corporations. How do they get the money? Corporations supply services and things we need, and they sell them for a price. People are employed by these corporations. Taxing corporations (and people) too much limits their ability to operate and grow, and save money. And, in business, if you aren't growing, you are collapsing. The line between growth and collapse is often a fine one. It's a terribly simple concept. The more your business can grow, the more you can pay your employees, and the more tax you (and they) can pay. In the modern American age, raising taxes has never, not once, generated an increase in revenue. Even a fractional increase can slow growth. Increasing tax reduces profit, which reduces pay, and net taxes. There are two kinds of liberal. The ignorant liberal (most common), and the true socialist. The ignorant liberal is a good person who believes that the government should do more to help people. That's fine and good to a certain extent, the government does have a responsibility to keep society safe, and make sure that all people have equal opportunity. The socialist believes that our entire system of government (mainly capitalism based) is wrong, and must be done away with. The socialist believes that people should work collectively, and that all wealth should be equally shared among all persons. It's a noble sentiment, but completely unworkable. What they fail to take into consideration is the dynamic of life. They forget that even human beings are animals, and share animal desires for territory and sex. Capitalism, regardless of it's faults, closely mirrors nature. It allows the ambitious to make use of their ambition. It rewards those who work hard, but it does little for those who can't or won't work hard. As for socialist societies, these animal traits exist there as well. And it is because of these traits that socialist societies always fail in the long run. The ambitious tend to find their way into the politburo or leadership positions, eventually leading to another society of haves and have nots. Some would argue that there are quite successful socialist governments in Europe, such as Sweden. But it's a weak argument. As is becoming increasingly clear at the moment, the only reasons that these governments have been able to function is because they have been indirectly subsidized by the American economy. European unemployment is double that in America, and increasing steadily. The unemployment rate in Sweden (whose socialist government was built upon equal redistribution of wealth and universal employment) is once again seeing unemployment rates of over 20%. I don't mind at all if Obama brings back the Clinton administration. Things will more or less remain the same as they are. God forbid he tries to bring back the Carter administration. Obama promised change. Here are some things which should be changed. First, term limits for congressmen and senators. No more than 2 terms each. Over the last century, our congress has become a ruling class, out of touch with the people. It's an incumbent system which makes it very hard for those without lots of money or political contacts to get in. It's just plain wrong. Next, campaign financing much be changed. The presidency is now sold to the largest money raiser, rather than the best man. It does not have to be this way. Politicians raise money mainly to pay for advertising. Why? Doesn't the federal government own all the tv and radio airwaves? Aren't broadcasters required to get a license to broadcast? As a condition of getting a license, broadcasters should be required to give a certain amount of airtime to candidates for free. This levels the playing field for everybody, and removes much of the power that special interests have over our candidates. Last, tax reform. The current tax code is 8500 pages long, and contains more than 60,000 regulations. It is through the tax code that our "elected representatives" in Washington repay those special interests which elect them. The way they do it is to engineer tax breaks or subsidies to certain industries at certain times. The current system must be eliminated and replaced with one which cannot be manipulated by politicians or special interests. Any questions? ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:51am
------------- ? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:59am
|
I have a question...
Where were you BEFORE the election. I totally agree with traveler. ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:20am
|
I don't see how you can classify liberals as either ignorant or socialists, but whatever floats your boat. To quote the Dude: "That's just like..your opinion, man." -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:25am
| I suppose if you buy some quality blinders, you can effectively break down and classify liberals as ignorant and socialist. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:27am
|
Yeah. Of course many conservatives would call liberals ignorant and socialist, but I'd like to think that people could view things a bit more objectively.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:39am
oh man screw the Zombies .. it's all about the Machines now. Better trade all my Nato Ball ammo for some armor piercing rounds.
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:42am
|
I come from an old family of liberals. My uncle was one of the most famous American socialists of the 20th century, believe it or not. I said that the "ignorant" liberals were good people, did I not? What makes them ignorant is how they allow themselves to be used. They are used (and then abused) by those they elect into office, who run on the promise "tax the rich and give to the poor", and end up only enriching themselves. The socialists are more insipid, they are for the most part intelligent and educated people. For the most part, they have lived comfortable lives, attended university, and have little experience at the school of hard knocks. Their perspective is narrow. Their intelligence is like something that can understand distant things, but at a cost of not being able to understand things close at hand. Most are not religious. Some go to church, but only socially. Their true religion is their ideology, and they often devote as much time and effort to it as religious people do their own churches or temples. Marx said that religion was opiate for the masses, not realizing that Marxism itself was a pseudo religion. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:21am
Yes, clearly. Because all politicians are not the same. The American political system is built on the premise of government and business enriching themselves, whether we like it or not. The only good thing is that we get to kick some of them out of office every couple of years, so things can be kept somewhat in hand.
I agree. Socialism only works if everyone contributes equally. I do not, and will not, support anything that smacks of socialism. But I don't think that Barack Obama has socialism in mind, nor do I think that he will be successful if he attempts it. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:25am
No, he doesn't. There are plenty of socialists who wish it were so, particularly those in the media fought so hard to get him into office. But they were used also, fools that they are. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:39am
I would say that is roughly true.
Those are four very good points. The fact that the tax code has actually created jobs worries me. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:42pm
Its not that you are ignorant, its that you know too much that isnt so. |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 6:19pm
..... (i'm at a loss for words here...) |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 8:47pm
Yes, the tax code has created jobs, mainly tax lawyer lawyer and tax preparer positions, and it has made many jobs for accountants. Here's an example. I own a business, so here is the list of things which I must pay. First is the regular overhead, payroll, rent, utilities and supplies. Next is the hard hitting stuff. Income tax (personal and business), property tax, licensing fees, sales tax, and state income tax. Taxes on my utilities (have you seen how much of your phone bill each month is actually tax?). Then there are other taxes and fees depending on the type of business. There are environmental impact fees, specific land use fees, not to mention fines, levies, and whatnot. On top of all this, you need to hire an accountant to make sense of it, which is another cost. People complain about America outsourcing jobs overseas, but many of them don't know just how much a typical business has to pay in tax each year. How much more does a corporation have to pay? In come cases, unless there in a manipulation of the tax code, many corporations and companies cannot make a profit. You'll hear from some that corporations pay less federal income tax than many think is fair. What they don't realize is that these corporations are allowed to write off many of the local taxes which they pay. This means that in reality, the are not pay any less than any one else, and more than likely (depending on which state they are located in) they are paying more. It's far easier for a company to move it's manufacturing (and now even administration) overseas where tax and regulation are minimal. Not only does this cost Americans jobs, but it reduces the amount of revenue collected in taxes. On the other hand, it those jobs were to stay in America, the costs would eventually close the business, which would have the same result. Socialism (and to a lesser extent, liberalism) doesn't seem to understand that it is business which employs people and generates tax revenue. They are all for worker's rights, but what good is a worker when he doesn't have a job? In truly socialist economies, the governments themselves often run industry, but they run it so poorly and inefficiently that they generally lose money, or generate so little that the workers live by mere subsistence. We all know how well our own government runs things. We can look at the quality of our education, the vast amounts of money spent for such little gain, the looming collapse of social security and whatnot. We desperately need change, but for fundamental reasons, it cannot and will not be delivered by Barrack Obama. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 8:57pm
For most things being said in this thread as if fact:
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:10pm
|
Yep. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:02pm
|
Damnit, there goes my career advancement.... Let's just hope I don't end up like my dad did and end up being forced out of the Army... And it's easy to say cut military funding when you not in it... Try working on helicopters, we fight as much as we can for parts as is... ------------- |
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 3:10pm
|
I now realize why I lost the election.
------------- X |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 3:13pm
Who says we need those helicopters? I honestly see no reason to have anything but a defensive army, and possibly a section which would be used for UN sanctioned peacekeeping. We do not need to be the world's policeman. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Uncle Rudder
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 5:21pm
|
Once Obama gets into office what are the tendy "punk" bands going to sing about? ------------- 
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 5:49pm
|
The change that Obama is looking for, is the change from the self-destructive government that we currently have. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 6:06pm
But of course reb... when a republican is in office they can point out all the little follies, but the moment a dem is elected, we aren't allowed to do the same things they've done for the past 8 years. Get with the times reb! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 9:03pm
A defensive army? So when we do get a legit attack (not saying 9/11 was but for the sake of argument) we have trouble gaining the soldiers to send out again? Then you have people who have been in 5-6 years on their 4th and 5th deployment? That's not fair... And until we pull out of Iraq, you do need those helicopters, just ask any infantry soldier that's been saved by them or used the intel they've gathered. But let's we're not at war, we don't need them right? Pilots can just sit and be fully ready to deploy and crew cheifs will know how to fix everything right, because they encounter the same problems without flying? Everything sounds good until you think about practically. ------------- |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 10:06pm
Do tell. ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 10:22pm
I think I hate you. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 11:22pm
Why? It's true. No other UN country puts as much money into policing the world(Fake made up fact, but probably true) ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 11:30pm
|
Latest thing on the news here in Detroit, is that Obama has asked our Governor to be on his cabinet. This is an absolutely horrendous decision. She runs this state like Hillary, and has also managed to run it into the ground.
------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site 
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 11:35pm
|
I don't live in Michigan, but I have worked with the Governor a bit, and I find her personally to be very impressive. Smart, capable, and motivated. As to whether she is a good governor I can't tell, but she is certainly somebody I wouldn't mind having on my team. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 1:20am
|
And she's Canadian
>_> -------------
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 9:16am
|
Born in Canada. Now American. Ineligible to run for President, otherwise we may have seen Schwarzenegger vs. Granholm this year. But she can certainly hold cabinet-level positions. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:22am
|
Psh.. once a Canadian always a Canadian -------------
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:53am
arnold for president... i'm just not sure i could picture that.... |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:54am
|
Has anyone actually payed any attention to Obama's own
publicly stated agenda of adding 65,000 soldier to the U.S. army, plus 27,000 more Marines http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga - Citat ion ? He wants to improve the military's ability to engage in civil affairs, wants to increase the number of language-trained soldiers, and wants to modernize the military towards a more flexible, more quickly mobilized force as well as increasing the inventory of strategic airlift. While still fully capable of fighting a modern conventional war, several of these particular efforts would greatly increase America's ability to fight a counterinsurgency such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Oh, and he wants to send three more brigades to Afghanistan. If you want to slam Obama, go ahead- but be ready to substantiate what you're going to say. Maybe even research what his actual stands on some issues are. It's sad that a Canadian has to enlighten some of you about the actual public positions of your own president- elect... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:59am
|
I'm not sure I like the sound of putting military and civil affairs in the same sentence. I would rather have the military only engaged in the skin hat industry and not in meals on wheels. ------------- My shoes of peace have steel toes. |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 12:01pm
heh, that made me think of a discusion i've been having with a hyper-conservative person i know...
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 12:03pm
|
I would like to agree, but I think the events in Iraq/Afghanistan have shown that the two blend in today's conflicts. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 12:13pm
Are you kidding? the ability to engage with and cooperate with a civilian population is the only thing that enables a military to effective operate in a counterinsurgency. 'Civil Affairs' basically refers to any such civil-military interaction. It's the softer side of the spectrum of getting the local population on your side and getting them to turn against insurgent elements. A comprehensive program of civil affairs and psychological operations is absolutely vital. You can't win a counterinsurgency simply by killing insurgents, because the conditions that drive people into insurgency will remain. Involving the military in the efforts to bring development, aid and construction to a conflicted area makes the locals more likely to have a favourable view of your presence. We see it all the time here in Kandahar; our troops will go into a village, sit down and drink tea with the village elders, ask what can be done to help their village out. The next week the engineers are in digging a well, or hooking up a generator, or clearing out irrigation channels. The village sees concrete good out of our presence. A month down the road, one of the villagers approaches one of our subsequent patrols and informs us that the insurgents planted an IED in a culvert under a main supply route overnight, and the engineers are able to dispose of the IED without it going off under one of our vehicles. Or perhaps someone tips us off about a new insurgent cell in the area, and our guys kick in the doors and nab a high value target and an IED factory. Our best intel comes from civilians who are sympathetic to our efforts and our presence, and consequently developing that sympathy must be one of the foremost goals of the military. The Civil Affairs (we call them CIMIC; civili-military cooperation) guys are the main effort in this approach, although of course every soldier on the ground has an impact, from the simple courtesy and respect they show the locals to any number of other gestures that can generate positive sentiment. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 12:18pm
|
I'm thinking brihard is actually a CIMIC guy, and his assignment is "internet paintball discussion boards". He's trying to build community support and root out the online insurgents. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 12:29pm
|
Note to self... The lawyer knows too much. But no, I would have loved to have landed with the CIMIC guys on this tour. I have a few buddies working security for them. they get to go a lot of different places. The one redeeming quality of my current duty is that I get a lot of interaction with the locals. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 1:06pm
I'm refering to nightmare situations with the military operating in this country. I am also not refering to situations like Afghanistan. If we knock them down, we should build them up again and feed them. I dislike the nonsense like trips to Hati or Somolia. Photo ops with soldiers hands tied due to insane rules of engagement. Sorry for the confusion Brihard. I'm aware of how the game is played. lol Rambino (@online insurgents) - Do you think Brihard can tell I stuffed my pants with 200 squad busters? ------------- My shoes of peace have steel toes. |
Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 1:43pm
I actually read a good portion of his website that outlined his plans the other day (which I can't seem to find now, thought it was under "Agenda") and while some of the stuff there didn't seem too bad, other ideas have me kind of worried. I like the idea of giving companies an incentive to hire U.S. workers but certain things like increasing minimum wage and the ban on assault rifles don't seem like they'll be helpful. My prediction is that he'll pay off a lot of the national debt but there won't be the miraculous economical recovery for us on an individual level like everybody thinks there will be. It'll be interesting to see how things pan out. I hope I'm wrong about him. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 1:58pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 2:03pm
| while putting a country into the stone age is a good deturent, its also a move thats hurting an of awefull lot innocent people.... i mean, its better then "lets nuke 'em" but i still dont think its the right course of action.... |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 2:58pm
The Marine Corps is already our quick reaction force, capable of doing combat missions anywhere in the world in a matter of days. MAGTF's fulfill his idea, and they already exist. The Army is our occupying and long term force. Plus, the "adding 27,000 Marines"... back when I was in boot camp, they already had plans to raise the number of Marines. Can he add on to what already exist? Yes, but his ideas are not original or new in the slighest on these couple. -------------
|
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 4:32pm
A few things, I didn't elect Obama, the American people did and I respect and honor that, but I didn't personally elect him. Second, how does he plan to add these numbers? I certainly hope not through his financial advisors role of cutting military spending. You know how to get more soldiers to join? Bonuses, and without extra funding you can't do that. The funding for bonuses has already been cut once. It won't be hard to go and dig up some statistics from the Clinton/Emanuel reign and show how well the military prospered during that... Once again, you can say anything as president, but look at who he's backing himself with. Saying and doing are two completely different things. ------------- |
Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 09 November 2008 at 10:32pm
The idea of more soldiers and less funding did strike me as a hardcore stupid idea but then again, I didn't crunch the numbers so I can't be sure. However, logic says that such a plan is going to fail pretty hard, especially since we're at war with 2 countries with others like Russia pounding their chests and looking to start trouble. This change that Obama has been so fixated on is not sounding too good to me. Thankfully, I didn't vote for him so I can blame everybody else  .
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 10 November 2008 at 9:10am
A politician need not have new or original ideas in every case to be effective; it is acceptable for him to proceed with the well constructed plans of his predecessors. I brought up the point merely to shut up the people who are claiming that Obama is gonna bring the roof down on the military, slash troop numbers and all that. The actual cost of recruiting, training and paying troops, especially at junior rank levels is relatively low compared to some of the very expensive capital expenditures, particularly in new aircraft and naval vessels. Gradually decreasing the number of troops deployed to Iraq will also save the military a lot of money, so it's not unreasonable that an increase in troop numbers could be revenue-neutral if some fat is trimmed elsewhere. I believe that Obama has a realistic approach to foreign affairs, and recognizes that military strength is still a vital asset to the Unit States. Being in opposition to the Iraq war is in no way indicative of an anti-military sentiment or agenda; indeed, he wants to send three more brigades to Afghanistan (which we definitely could use). The proof will be in the pudding of course, but I'm optimistic that Obama isn't going to screw the American armed forces. I expect some changes, yes, but mostly a shift of focus and modernization or certain elements that are increasingly relevant to counterinsurgency. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 10 November 2008 at 9:29am
| Brihard is right. Obama knows America needs a strong military, and if anything he will mordernize and strengthen it internally. I don't see him slashing numbers. The branches are already doing that to themselves. The Navy is downsizing right now, because we are taking a lot of people in due to the struggling economy. Our Physical Fitness Tests (PFT) are getting more difficult. As of last month, 11 people from our command are being administratively separated for previous PFT failures, and PFT standards are just the first phase of downsizing. Everyone who's been in for more than 10 years wants the 20 year military pension, but there's way too many dirtbags that are just handing out basketballs on shore duty for 3 years, so the Navy is looking to keep the people who take challenging duty stations vice the easy ones. |