We're about to find out what change really means....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hew

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M Remington

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??

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul young

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!!!!

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!

Sorry all y'all, this was not the appropriate thread to post the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M Remington

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.