PDA

View Full Version : We're about to find out what change really means....



Gun_Dog2002
01-26-2009, 01:46 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_embassy_threat


Wonder how Mr. President will handle this...

/dog

duckheads
01-26-2009, 04:58 PM
i was listening to dennis miller today and he had an officer on his show from gitmo . she said that two former detainees that were released from gitmo are in yemen. one of them is in charge of al-Qaida there and is on the internet bragging about how he was released from gitmo. some of the terrorists that have been released from gitmo have already been caught fighting against us. i believe it is only a matter of time before they strike us again. this admin is hell bent on changing everything bush put in place to keep the terrorists from attacking us again.

Julie R.
01-26-2009, 07:47 PM
this admin is hell bent on changing everything bush put in place to keep the terrorists from attacking us again.

This administration is hell bent on changing every single thing the Bush administration did with no concern over what's best for the country. Obama is way too worried people might actually decide the Bush administration wasn't that bad after all to concern himself with petty stuff like terrorist attacks.

M Remington
01-26-2009, 07:49 PM
Actually Julie, Obama's doing what he was elected to do. The majority of Americans felt that EVERYTHING George Bush did was wrong.

Gun_Dog2002
01-26-2009, 07:56 PM
Actually Julie, Obama's doing what he was elected to do. The majority of Americans felt that EVERYTHING George Bush did was wrong.

Oh here we go again using the majority of americans statement. The difference was split down the middle you goober. You keep trying to make it sound like the whole country was against Bush. Newsflash, BO better start doing something original and quit relying on just doing everything opposite to what Bush did ......




/Paul

shootncast
01-26-2009, 07:58 PM
This administration is hell bent on changing every single thing the Bush administration did with no concern over what's best for the country. Obama is way too worried people might actually decide the Bush administration wasn't that bad after all to concern himself with petty stuff like terrorist attacks.


Please tell me your not serious.

M Remington
01-26-2009, 08:03 PM
Oh here we go again using the majority of americans statement. The difference was split down the middle you goober. You keep trying to make it sound like the whole country was against Bush. /Paul

Paul, let's review the numbers. . .

Obama won 54% of the vote, McCain won 46% of the vote
Obama won 66,882,000 popular votes, McCain won 58,344,000 popular votes
Obama won 365 electoral votes, McCain won 173 electoral votes

But, I'll agree that it wasn't just Bush's fault. The bulk of the country was against Bush, but Sarah Palin's lack of intellect and qualification was icing on the cake. McCain had a chance until he caved to the right wing and chose someone whose only qualification was that she was a right-wing zealot.

zeus3925
01-26-2009, 08:14 PM
Oh here we go again using the majority of americans statement. The difference was split down the middle you goober. You keep trying to make it sound like the whole country was against Bush. Newsflash, BO better start doing something original and quit relying on just doing everything opposite to what Bush did ......

Actually check again, Paul. Bush's approval ratings were down in the 20s %. He was pretty much down to the political deaf and blind but unfortunately not dumb.

Gun_Dog2002
01-26-2009, 08:14 PM
Paul, let's review the numbers. . .

Obama won 54% of the vote, McCain won 46% of the vote
Obama won 66,882,000 popular votes, McCain won 58,344,000 popular votes
Obama won 365 electoral votes, McCain won 173 electoral votes

But, I'll agree that it wasn't just Bush's fault. The bulk of the country was against Bush, but Sarah Palin's lack of intellect and qualification was icing on the cake. McCain had a chance until he caved to the right wing and chose someone whose only qualification was that she was a right-wing zealot.

So where is the stat that the majority hated EVERYTHING he did?

Nothing worse than a sore winner.

/Paul

M Remington
01-26-2009, 08:19 PM
So where is the stat that the majority hated EVERYTHING he did? /Paul

Probably not everything he did. . . we moderates like to say that, though.

luvmylabs23139
01-26-2009, 08:31 PM
Actually Julie, Obama's doing what he was elected to do. The majority of Americans felt that EVERYTHING George Bush did was wrong.

Fine, when the crap hits the fan, and it will, My new SAR dog and I will stay home, since it was the will of the people to open us up for other 9/11. I don't need to deal with facing those nightmares again, when they could have been avoided.

Julie R.
01-26-2009, 09:56 PM
Probably not everything he did. . . we commies like to say that, though.


There...fixed it for ya Marx, oops I mean Mark.

toddh
01-26-2009, 10:01 PM
There...fixed it for ya Marx, oops I mean Mark.

:-D:-D That right there is funny...

M Remington
01-26-2009, 10:03 PM
There...fixed it for ya Marx, oops I mean Mark.

I agree, that is funny.

YardleyLabs
01-26-2009, 10:25 PM
In his first week in office, Bush:

1. Rolled back all the last minute regulatory changes of the Clinton administration, just as Obama rolled back those by Bush.
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election.
3. Reversed an Executive order by Clinton that had reversed an executive order by Reagan to reestablish a policy denying any US aid to international organizations or governments that provided information about contraception or abortions. Obama reversed this reversal of a reversal of Reagan's original proclamation. How's that for confusing.
4. Introduced his educational reform program for "no child left behind" in conjuction with a program of vouchers.
5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups.
6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling.

One may agree or disagree with these policies. At the time, much like Obama, Bush received high grades for leadership in the opening days of his administration and was also attacked for gross partisanship in the priorities he set and the manner in which he pursued them. Shortly after Bush indicated his intention to cancel the anti-ballistic missile treaty and back off of US policies on disarmament and to pursue Ragan's "star war's" missile defense system.

These items were massive reversals in the direction of the country implemented by a President who had lost the popular vote and been appointed president by a partisan SCOTUS in a decision that rewrote two centuries of Constitutional precedent. From Bush's perspective, the situation was simple. However it had happened, he was the President and he intended to use his office to further the agenda on which he had campaigned. Did you really expect less from Obama?

Gun_Dog2002
01-26-2009, 11:02 PM
In his first week in office, Bush:

1. Rolled back all the last minute regulatory changes of the Clinton administration, just as Obama rolled back those by Bush.
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election.
3. Reversed an Executive order by Clinton that had reversed an executive order by Reagan to reestablish a policy denying any US aid to international organizations or governments that provided information about contraception or abortions. Obama reversed this reversal of a reversal of Reagan's original proclamation. How's that for confusing.
4. Introduced his educational reform program for "no child left behind" in conjuction with a program of vouchers.
5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups.
6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling.

One may agree or disagree with these policies. At the time, much like Obama, Bush received high grades for leadership in the opening days of his administration and was also attacked for gross partisanship in the priorities he set and the manner in which he pursued them. Shortly after Bush indicated his intention to cancel the anti-ballistic missile treaty and back off of US policies on disarmament and to pursue Ragan's "star war's" missile defense system.

These items were massive reversals in the direction of the country implemented by a President who had lost the popular vote and been appointed president by a partisan SCOTUS in a decision that rewrote two centuries of Constitutional precedent. From Bush's perspective, the situation was simple. However it had happened, he was the President and he intended to use his office to further the agenda on which he had campaigned. Did you really expect less from Obama?

No I didn't. I wished for more....but reality set in.

/Paul

IowaBayDog
01-27-2009, 06:25 AM
In his first week in office, Bush:

1. Rolled back all the last minute regulatory changes of the Clinton administration, just as Obama rolled back those by Bush.
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election.
3. Reversed an Executive order by Clinton that had reversed an executive order by Reagan to reestablish a policy denying any US aid to international organizations or governments that provided information about contraception or abortions. Obama reversed this reversal of a reversal of Reagan's original proclamation. How's that for confusing.
4. Introduced his educational reform program for "no child left behind" in conjuction with a program of vouchers.
5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups.
6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling.

One may agree or disagree with these policies. At the time, much like Obama, Bush received high grades for leadership in the opening days of his administration and was also attacked for gross partisanship in the priorities he set and the manner in which he pursued them. Shortly after Bush indicated his intention to cancel the anti-ballistic missile treaty and back off of US policies on disarmament and to pursue Ragan's "star war's" missile defense system.

These items were massive reversals in the direction of the country implemented by a President who had lost the popular vote and been appointed president by a partisan SCOTUS in a decision that rewrote two centuries of Constitutional precedent. From Bush's perspective, the situation was simple. However it had happened, he was the President and he intended to use his office to further the agenda on which he had campaigned. Did you really expect less from Obama?


So you are saying "CHANGE" and "Bringing a new kind of politics to Washington" are really just the same politics as Reagan, Clinton, and Bush?? Must make you feel kind of foolish for voting for that :rolleyes:?

Hew
01-27-2009, 08:15 AM
Text in bold is mine...

I agree completely with you that elections have consequences and it should come as no surprise that Obama will attempt to implement many of the ideas that he campaigned on; just as George Bush did. If for the next four/eight years, however, you intend to respond to every criticism of Obama with a tit-for-tat comparison to Bush, then you you have an obligation to be factual in your comparisons.


In his first week in office, Bush:

1. Rolled back all the last minute regulatory changes of the Clinton administration, just as Obama rolled back those by Bush. Correct
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election. Timeline not correct, and I'd be very surprised if you can provide a quote where Bush said what you claim.
3. Reversed an Executive order by Clinton that had reversed an executive order by Reagan to reestablish a policy denying any US aid to international organizations or governments that provided information about contraception or abortions. Obama reversed this reversal of a reversal of Reagan's original proclamation. How's that for confusing. Correct
4. Introduced his educational reform program for "no child left behind" in conjuction with a program of vouchers. Correct
5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups. Not so much. Timeline is incorrect.
6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling. What treaty are you talking about? If you were referring to either Kyoto or ABM your timeline is again wrong. And a wholesale reversal of environmental policies would be pretty tough to accomplish since Whitman at the EPA wasn't even confirmed by the Senate in Bush's first week. Which environmental policies do you refer to?

Again, your main point stands...every president sets out early to put their stamp on the gig. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Obama is doing it, too. Maybe you should have stopped there and left out the inaccurate rehash of things you imagined Bush doing.

YardleyLabs
01-27-2009, 09:42 AM
Text in bold is mine...

I agree completely with you that elections have consequences and it should come as no surprise that Obama will attempt to implement many of the ideas that he campaigned on; just as George Bush did. If for the next four/eight years, however, you intend to respond to every criticism of Obama with a tit-for-tat comparison to Bush, then you you have an obligation to be factual in your comparisons. Quote:
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=391644#post391644)
In his first week in office, Bush:

1. Rolled back all the last minute regulatory changes of the Clinton administration, just as Obama rolled back those by Bush. Correct
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election. Timeline not correct, and I'd be very surprised if you can provide a quote where Bush said what you claim. On January 22 (Day 2), Phil Gramm introduced the President's plan for tax cuts with the support of a single Democrat, as reported on CNN.com.
3. Reversed an Executive order by Clinton that had reversed an executive order by Reagan to reestablish a policy denying any US aid to international organizations or governments that provided information about contraception or abortions. Obama reversed this reversal of a reversal of Reagan's original proclamation. How's that for confusing. Correct
4. Introduced his educational reform program for "no child left behind" in conjuction with a program of vouchers. Correct
5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups. Not so much. Timeline is incorrect. Accordong to PBS.org, the proposed office of faith based initiatives was announced on day 10 with follow up in February (Day 39) when the President indicated that he wanted to funnel $14 billion in new funds through faith based oganizations.
6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling. What treaty are you talking about? If you were referring to either Kyoto or ABM your timeline is again wrong. And a wholesale reversal of environmental policies would be pretty tough to accomplish since Whitman at the EPA wasn't even confirmed by the Senate in Bush's first week. Which environmental policies do you refer to? You're right. These action actually happened piecemeal over the first 60 days but began well before Whitman was appointed. NPR.org reports "After barely more than 60 days in office, President Bush has placed a distinctive mark on U.S. environmental policy, rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions. And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan. Environmental Protection Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told reporters the president had "no interest in implementing it." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was even more blunt."

Again, your main point stands...every president sets out early to put their stamp on the gig. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Obama is doing it, too. Maybe you should have stopped there and left out the inaccurate rehash of things you imagined Bush doing. And that is the main point.

I put my comments in red.

Hew
01-27-2009, 05:02 PM
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election. Timeline not correct, and I'd be very surprised if you can provide a quote where Bush said what you claim. On January 22 (Day 2), Phil Gramm introduced the President's plan for tax cuts with the support of a single Democrat, as reported on CNN.com.
Phil Gramm AND Democrat Zell Miller introduced their version of Bush's plan. Bush submitted his own plan in early February (day 20 per PBS.org). Your notation that the plan was introduced with the support of one single Democrat is pretty funny and totally misleading, because using that "logic," only one single Republican, Gramm, supported the tax cuts...Gramm and Miller were Co-sponsors. In the end, only 31 Senate Dems voted against the tax cuts vs. 19 who supported it by voting for it or were too chickensh!t to cast a vote against (a de facto vote FOR the tax cut).

What I further found interesting with your misleading "with the support of a single Democrat" line was an attempt to couch Bush as the partisan idealogue trying to ram things down the Democrats' throats early in his administration. I trust that when Obama gets an equal amount of support (or even less) from today's GOP than Bush got from the Democrats in '01 that you'll be accusing Obama of being the partisan idealogue pushing stuff down the GOP's throats, right? Trust me, I won't be holding my breath. ;-)


5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups. Not so much. Timeline is incorrect. Accordong to PBS.org, the proposed office of faith based initiatives was announced on day 10 with follow up in February (Day 39) when the President indicated that he wanted to funnel $14 billion in new funds through faith based oganizations.
Day 10 or day 39 is entirely different than "in the first week." Unless you use some sort of Mesopotamian or Gregorian calender that I'm not familiar with. ;)



6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling. What treaty are you talking about? If you were referring to either Kyoto or ABM your timeline is again wrong. And a wholesale reversal of environmental policies would be pretty tough to accomplish since Whitman at the EPA wasn't even confirmed by the Senate in Bush's first week. Which environmental policies do you refer to? You're right. These action actually happened piecemeal over the first 60 days but began well before Whitman was appointed. NPR.org reports "After barely more than 60 days in office, President Bush has placed a distinctive mark on U.S. environmental policy, rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions. And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan. Environmental Protection Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told reporters the president had "no interest in implementing it." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was even more blunt."


And as you've noted, "barely more than 60 days" is a far cry from "in the first week."

Sorry to split hairs, but when someone throws out statements of facts like, "in his first week Bush...." I just think think they/we have a good-faith obligation to make sure those facts are correct.

smillerdvm
01-27-2009, 05:41 PM
[QUOTE=Hew;
Sorry to split hairs, but when someone throws out statements of facts like, "in his first week Bush...." I just think think they/we have a good-faith obligation to make sure those facts are correct.[/QUOTE]

We know how accurate you are on your fact checking, and that you feel everyone has a....."good-faith obligation to make sure those facts are correct". I wished more of the neo-cons felt that way.
You can talk the talk on fact checking, now lets see if you can walk the walk

In view of your stated position , why haven't you reported back on the results of your fact checking on the "Should Bush be held accountable" thread?

Captain Mike D
01-27-2009, 05:55 PM
We know how accurate you are on your fact checking, and that you feel everyone has a....."good-faith obligation to make sure those facts are correct". I wished more of the neo-cons felt that way.
You can talk the talk on fact checking, now lets see if you can walk the walk

In view of your stated position , why haven't you reported back on the results of your fact checking on the "Should Bush be held accountable" thread?

If you are going to call Hew out on that question then I would ask you-- Why has not a single Lefty commented on the TWO threads regarding our new Sec. of the Treasury??
How about Hillary's conflicts of interest?

Hew
01-27-2009, 06:01 PM
I wished more of the neo-cons felt that way.

LOL. Open the windows in your office and let it air out some, doc, I think somebody left the lid off the flea dip. I wish you knew what a neo-con actually was other than a fun name to call someone.

PS...feel free to bring that thread back up to the top with your moveon.org-inspired blockbuster revelation. I already asked you once to explain where I was wrong and you passed...I honestly don't give you much more thought than that.

JDogger
01-28-2009, 01:54 AM
I wish you knew what a neo-con actually was other than a fun name to call someone.

Well...its a pretty broad term...just google it. Whats it mean to you? I know what it means to me.

Whats a liberal? Lots to google there too. I don't expect to lose any sleep because its a fun name to call someone as well.

JD

paul young
01-28-2009, 06:48 AM
i have to ask Duckhead when the head of al-quaida in Yemen was released.

i have a hard time believing it was in the last week. and if it wasn't, how is that Obamas fault?

i can see what Obama's in for over the next 4 years........-Paul

Matt McKenzie
01-28-2009, 06:57 AM
i have to ask Duckhead when the head of al-quaida in Yemen was released.

i have a hard time believing it was in the last week. and if it wasn't, how is that Obamas fault?

i can see what Obama's in for over the next 4 years........-Paul

I suspect he's in for the same kind of treatment that President Bush got for the last 8. Like Bush, he will abandon his base on many key issues but will certainly not win any friends on the right. He'll find himself in the middle with his approval ratings in the dumps waiting on historical perspective to determine his effectiveness. He will be a huge disappointment to the far left and a nemesis to the far right. His years in the position will age him horribly and when it's time to go, he will welcome the relief. Let's just hope he manages to do something positive during that time.

paul young
01-28-2009, 06:59 AM
Luvmylabs,

it certainly is your decision whether you and your dogs respond to future emergencies. i just would ask you to question your motives before making that decision.-Paul

YardleyLabs
01-28-2009, 07:31 AM
...

And as you've noted, "barely more than 60 days" is a far cry from "in the first week."

Sorry to split hairs, but when someone throws out statements of facts like, "in his first week Bush...." I just think think they/we have a good-faith obligation to make sure those facts are correct.
I will admit to a certain amount of hyperbole in my statements. However, for someone who freely calls others Marxists when you disagree with their policies -- with no ideological or factual basis beyond prejudice -- and who bristles at being called a neo-con, your focus on detail is a little misplaced. It's similar to your argument that my calling the missile defense system "an abysmal failure" is misguided because of the success of Aegis in close in defense of ships when there have been no successful tests of the missile defense system proposed for Poland that involved any form of sophisticated countermeasures even when Aegis has been used for tracking. The one "near" success was when the countermeasures failed to deploy.

My point, as you noted in your original response, was that each President can be expected to make his (or her) mark on the job and to further the agenda that got them elected in the first place.

Hew
01-28-2009, 07:41 AM
Well...its a pretty broad term...just google it. Whats it mean to you? I know what it means to me.
If it has become a pretty broad term it is only because it has been mis-applied so often and seems to be the catch-all pejorative for lots of folks. It is nearly universally accepted that neo-conservatism is related to foreign policy beliefs; not economics, not domestic policy, not social issues,...but foreign policy. So in a discussion about some generic topic when somebody blurts out something along the lines of, "I wish neo-cons would tell the truth," it outs them (to me, anyway) as a moonbat who regurgitates.


Whats a liberal? Lots to google there too. I don't expect to lose any sleep because its a fun name to call someone as well.
Sure, ask 100 people what a liberal or conservative is and you'll get 100 different answers. But neo-conservatism is much narrower. Not all conservatives are neo-cons any more than all liberals are pacifists.

Hew
01-28-2009, 08:01 AM
I will admit to a certain amount of hyperbole in my statements. However, for someone who freely calls others Marxists when you disagree with their policies -- with no ideological or factual basis beyond prejudice --
That's patent horsesh!t. A search of "Hew" and "Marxist" will yield you a grand total of two posts of mine. TWO. Here they are:


I've never said Obama's a socialist or a marxist,...


Call it whatever you want, but the notions you put forth in your first post were entirely Marxist...from the notion that the accumulation of excess wealth is bad to the notion that wealth accumulation must naturally come at the expense of others...straight outta "Das Kapital."

More of your "hyperbole" I guess?


and who bristles at being called a neo-con,
I don't bristle at being called a neo-con. I bristle at dim bulbs who don't know what a neo-con is calling me a neo-con.


It's similar to your argument that my calling the missile defense system "an abysmal failure" is misguided because of the success of Aegis in close in defense of ships when there have been no successful tests of the missile defense system proposed for Poland that involved any form of sophisticated countermeasures even when Aegis has been used for tracking. The one "near" success was when the countermeasures failed to deploy.
LOL. You and the smiller guy carry some baggage around with you. Feel free to bring that thread back up to the top and we'll discuss...including your above mischaracterization of what I wrote.

YardleyLabs
01-28-2009, 08:08 AM
If it has become a pretty broad term it is only because it has been mis-applied so often and seems to be the catch-all pejorative for lots of folks. It is nearly universally accepted that neo-conservatism is related to foreign policy beliefs; not economics, not domestic policy, not social issues,...but foreign policy. So in a discussion about some generic topic when somebody blurts out something along the lines of, "I wish neo-cons would tell the truth," it outs them (to me, anyway) as a moonbat who regurgitates.


Sure, ask 100 people what a liberal or conservative is and you'll get 100 different answers. But neo-conservatism is much narrower. Not all conservatives are neo-cons any more than all liberals are pacifists.

Interestingly, I think the term neoconservative has become narrower over time. In its infancy, with Irving Kristol and arguably even Daniel Patrick Moyniham (Although he never embraced the term, Moynihan's "Maximum Feasible Mis-Understanding" might be considered to be an early neoconservative document.), it focused on domestic issues more than foreign ones. It grew initially from disillusionment over the failures of "The Great Society". Under Reagan, the focus shifted more towards foreign policy and the collapse of Russia was claimed as a neo-con vistory.

Of course, the movement fell into the toilet with its involvement in the Iran-Contra fiasco. Unfortunately, neo-cons didn't stay there and can now claim Iraq as their new "victory", ignoring the fact that most of their ideals had to be sacrificed to achieve today's modicum of near-stability.

YardleyLabs
01-28-2009, 08:25 AM
That's patent horsesh!t. A search of "Hew" and "Marxist" will yield you a grand total of two posts of mine. TWO. Here they are:




More of your "hyperbole" I guess?
As the one you called a Marxist, I considered your characterization to be a little free of either thought or facts.



LOL. You and the smiller guy carry some baggage around with you. Feel free to bring that thread back up to the top and we'll discuss...including your above mischaracterization of what I wrote.



My use of the "so-called" comment was based on the abysmal track record of the systems in actually stopping missiles in a realistic combat scenario.

Abysmal? Really? The Aegis system has been profoundly successful at intercepting late stage ballistic missles and is currently operational. The Ground Based Midcourse Defense is not as far along as Aegis, but still has a 57% success rate on hit-to-kill tests and can only get better as the technology evolves. With systems like these, the goal is to deter an enemy from having us find out how well they'd work in an actual combat scenario. One thing's for sure, though,... had people like yourself been running the country the success rate of anti-ballistic missle tests would be sitting at 0% right now.

I'm guessing that your 57% success rate comes from the fact that in 13 tests, the system has successfully intercepted the target 7 times (that actually comes to 54%). However, in tests in which countermeasures were deployed, the success rate is zero (Source: Center for Defense Intelligence, summary of flight test results updated through 12/22/08, at http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/GMD%20IFT3.pdf).

Will the system ever work? I suspect that at some point it will become marginally effective if investments are continued for the next 5-10 years. Will the investment ever be justified by the result? I doubt it. I also suspect that the same investment, deployed to support foreign aid and diplomatic efforts would have done more to preserve our future security than the missile defense system ever would have.

txbadger
01-28-2009, 09:27 AM
Paul, let's review the numbers. . .

Obama won 54% of the vote, McCain won 46% of the vote
Obama won 66,882,000 popular votes, McCain won 58,344,000 popular votes
Obama won 365 electoral votes, McCain won 173 electoral votes

But, I'll agree that it wasn't just Bush's fault. The bulk of the country was against Bush, but Sarah Palin's lack of intellect and qualification was icing on the cake. McCain had a chance until he caved to the right wing and chose someone whose only qualification was that she was a right-wing zealot.

Exactly what were BHO's qualifications - Left wing zealot??

Pete
01-28-2009, 10:03 AM
have to ask Duckhead when the head of al-quaida in Yemen was released.

i have a hard time believing it was in the last week. and if it wasn't, how is that Obamas fault?

i can see what Obama's in for over the next 4 years........-Paul
__________________


Do you think the release of all those terrorist at gitmo were on the backs of conservatives,,, they were pressured by the metro lefties to please let them go.
Some of them went back with IOU's promising to never do it again. Thats a fricken liberal tactic.

Liberals could care less about right or wrong as long as their party prevails,the republicans are no different their just not as slick at it.

The patients are now in charge of the assilym.
Im neither a republican or lib by the way and you can cut down Bush all you want,,, he was just a guy who spent a lot of time catering to the patients on his knees.

I don't know if its funny or sickening to listen to you guys argueing sides.

Its like jeffry Dommer and Charles manson discussing who is the nice moral gentleman out of the 2


Pete

Hew
01-28-2009, 11:08 AM
As the one you called a Marxist, I considered your characterization to be a little free of either thought or facts.

I wrote that the ideas in one of your posts was Marxist (and they were, no matter what euphemism you'd prefer to call them). Saying that qualifies as me calling you a Marxist is pretty weak, but not nearly as lame as you using that one particular post to then accuse me of "freely calling others Marxists when I disagree with their policies..." If I so freely do that, I'm sure you'll have no problems finding others folks I've called Marxists.



I'm guessing that your 57% success rate comes from the fact that in 13 tests, the system has successfully intercepted the target 7 times (that actually comes to 54%). However, in tests in which countermeasures were deployed, the success rate is zero (Source: Center for Defense Intelligence, summary of flight test results updated through 12/22/08, at http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/GMD%20IFT3.pdf).

It wasn't "my 57% success rate." Look at the first paragraph of the very article you linked. It says, "The system has made eight intercepts out of 14 attempts." I'm no math wiz, but my calculator tells me that 8 divided by 14 = 0.571429. Also, from your source, tests IFT3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all utilized countermeasures and all were intercept successes. So I don't know where you're getting the zero success rate claim.



Will the system ever work? I suspect that at some point it will become marginally effective if investments are continued for the next 5-10 years. Will the investment ever be justified by the result? I doubt it. I also suspect that the same investment, deployed to support foreign aid and diplomatic efforts would have done more to preserve our future security than the missile defense system ever would have.

Those are rational arguments. Claims of "abysmal" failures and mocking the technological abilities aren't.

duckheads
01-28-2009, 12:00 PM
i have to ask Duckhead when the head of al-quaida in Yemen was released.

i have a hard time believing it was in the last week. and if it wasn't, how is that Obamas fault?

i can see what Obama's in for over the next 4 years........-Paul

paul i am not blaming obama for the past releases. i would say liberals and the media behind them are more to blame. they are enemy combatants and should be treated as such and should not be released because the cindy sheehans of the world think they are being mistreated. these people's lives revolve around wanting to kill as many of us as possible. obama has come out and stated he is closing gitmo before he even knows what they are going to do with the terrorists that are being held their. now he wants to set up a rehab center for these terrorists. give me a break! i guess he has give something back to all of the foreigners he recieved money from during his campaign!!!!

greg ye
01-28-2009, 12:12 PM
WTF? Obama just addressed a group of business leaders and was introduced by the CEOs of IBM and HON, who gave full glowing support to the Stimulus Package under consideration. Obama clearly stated that the private sector creates economic growth and employment and that government's job was to support business. If I didn't know better, Obama sounded like Reagan!!! Is this POTUS simply pragmatic? influenced by on the job training? moving right? And if this is the case, why are the Repubs being locked out of the House's deliberation on stimulus? Can Obama really work across the isle as he promised? Or, is Obama simply a master of identifying his audience and pandering ad hoc? I know my confidence has peaked by his steady leadership, not!

greg ye
01-28-2009, 12:18 PM
Sorry all y'all, this was not the appropriate thread to post the above.

Steve Amrein
01-28-2009, 02:23 PM
Paul, let's review the numbers. . .

Obama won 54% of the vote, McCain won 46% of the vote
Obama won 66,882,000 popular votes, McCain won 58,344,000 popular votes
Obama won 365 electoral votes, McCain won 173 electoral votes

But, I'll agree that it wasn't just Bush's fault. The bulk of the country was against Bush, but Sarah Palin's lack of intellect and qualification was icing on the cake. McCain had a chance until he caved to the right wing and chose someone whose only qualification was that she was a right-wing zealot.



The census bureau says that in 2006 there were 220.6 million people but 66.9 mill is quite far from the majority of Americans and the current entire population is over 305 million. To further review the numbers.