Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee

[Jacks:Revenge]

No, but they might simply not vote for anyone then, hurting him just the same.

uhhh no. They're going to vote. Obama will accommodate far more of their concerns than will McCain. At this point he can pretty much count on the vast majority of the votes she was going to receive regardless of his running mate.

Well, if I had to bet $100 I'd put it on Obama, how's that?

My fingers are crossed.

 

[Crotale]

Although I'm honestly unclear about what either McCain or Obama will bring to the table, all I keep hearing about and from Obama is change. Well, what f*cking change is he planning to bring? I am hearkened back to the inauguration of Bill Clinton ,and I remember Sam Donaldson stating that that an era of change was about to begin. What changed when Clinton was in the WH and what will change with Obama in there?

I guess what I'm getting at is this: what changes will Obama make to how our government works in order to facilitate a change for the better for our country?

 

[ilkman]

Although I'm honestly unclear about what either McCain or Obama will bring to the table, all I keep hearing about and from Obama is change. Well, what f*cking change is he planning to bring? I am hearkened back to the inauguration of Bill Clinton ,and I remember Sam Donaldson stating that that an era of change was about to begin. What changed when Clinton was in the WH and what will change with Obama in there?

I guess what I'm getting at is this: what changes will Obama make to how our government works in order to facilitate a change for the better for our country?

Well if Obama does what he says he will in this video concerning disarming and cutting funding to military stuff then it won't be for the betterment of America. These points alone worry me about him getting into the White House than any other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

In an ideal world there can be world peace. In an ideal world all nations will lay down their arms and come together to make things a better place. We don't live in an ideal world, and probably never will.

He mentions ending the Iraq war. If he ends it outright it'll probably do more long term damage to our country and Iraq than whats been done so far.

He talks about cutting funding to unproven missile defense systems. What systems? Like the Patriot system that was pretty good at best until it was discovered it could shoot down other missiles like in the first Gulf War? I'd hate to see what potential would be lost in other systems he would cut.

Next up is weaponizing space. Personally I don't think anyone should have control over space. It should be neutral ground. However as more developing countries find themselves getting into space, whose going to stop them from sending weapons into space? A slap on the wrist? A coddling plea to not do it? Not likely. Space is the perfect platform to launch nukes from. If it comes to it I'd rather a country with a bit more restraint gets up their first.

Why would we want to slow our development of future combat systems? So other countries can catch up and surpass us? What has made us one of the most powerful nations on earth? A large economy, freedom of the people, and the best military period, which includes heightened technology. We need to maintain that edge for our own safety.

I agree with him on unnecessary spending. We shouldn't be waisting money. However, based on his other thoughts on how we should limit our military I question his judgment on what should and should not be funded.

His goal for a world without nuclear weapons is the most naive ideal ever. It will not happen. He plans to not make any more nukes, and try to globally ban fissile material? And how will that make America a better place? How will that make the world a better place? Ideally it would, but then again we don't live in an ideal world. And most of all how would anyone police other countries to make sure they are not making more nukes and that they got rid of all their current nukes? Who would get to do that? Taking it to an extreme what sort of corruption is spawnable in an institute with that much power?

Need I remind everyone about the adamant hate of the western world by certain middle eastern nations and certain terrorist groups and the lengths at witch they will go to gain nuclear armament. This ties in with the canceling of missile defense systems. If such persons gain nuclear weapons we'll certainly need a means to defend ourselves from them. This would be a good reason to weaponize space. Its a good place to intercept ICBM style nukes.

His desire is noble, but it cannot be realized. Human beings are inherently evil. From a raving madman to the most noble philanthropist who goes home and beats his wife or subtly ignores his kids. There is evil in all forms. As long as there is evil there will be a need for weapons.

The modernized western world would probably comply and willingly disarm and get rid of nukes, but what I'm afraid of are the terrorist groups and dictators in the ravaged parts of the world who would not comply and possibly even get ahold of nukes and other weapons. They would use them and if we don't have similar and better weapons we couldn't defend ourselves.

Its not a matter of wanting to, we NEED to maintain a stockpile of weapons. And I'd rather it be America than most other countries to be honest.

P.S. tl;dr

 

[IBStephyJo]

Ugh.. Great. I like Obama. He's represented Chicago and Illinois well, I'll give him that. But a President from Hyde Park, Chicago? I don't know.. that whole area, and alot of the people from Hyde Park are really shady characters.

But to be honest... I don't like McCain, Hilary or Obama. And it doesn't really matter anyways since I won't be voting in November.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Ugh.. Great. I like Obama. He's represented Chicago and Illinois well, I'll give him that. But a President from Hyde Park, Chicago? I don't know.. that whole area, and alot of the people from Hyde Park are really shady characters.

Wait.

You don't like to think of Obama as president because he's from Hyde Park? And because you're going to stereotype the entire neighborhood as "shady?" The man is clearly highly educated and well-spoken for, what difference does the area he comes from make?

You know what, don't answer that. It's a good idea that people like you choose not to vote, at least you've got that much sense.

 

[hal]

Meh, Obama is no Marxist and Marx wouldn't have been too pleased with the Democrats.

Haha... I'm sure he'll give it the 'ol college try though!

Liz: saw that one earlier... I lol'ed!

Ugh.. Great. I like Obama. He's represented Chicago and Illinois well, I'll give him that.

Interesting post from a local (I assume). What has he done for Chicago and Illinois?

 

[UY]

1) He isn't Muslim.
2) He's racist? He's half ****ing white.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

And how can you go to a church like that for 20 years and not say you are a racist? WTF?

 

[TWD]

I think Ilkman's comments is only the tip of the iceberg. Obama supporters are celebrating like he's got the presidency in the bag. They are 100% confident that he's going to win. Fact is however that Obama has as much working against him as McCain does. It's Obama's to screw up. All McCain has to do is sit by and be quiet like he did in the republican race, and let Obama screw it up with his naive foreign policy/radical relationships.

 

[Big-Al]

I his naive foreign policy/radical relationships.

yeah! you don't wanna go all soft & nice on foreigners! they might get the idea the US isn't such a bad place after all!

 

[T2A`]

You all watch too much Fox News.

Also, US foreign policy has never made any sense.

1. Buy sh*t from Eastern Asia where labor is really cheap.
2. F**k Europe.
3. Bomb the Middle East.
4. F**k Russia.
5. Bomb the Middle East some more.
6. F**k Canada and Australia, eh?
7. Immigration is good. Except from Mexico. THEY TOOK OUR JAERBS.
8. Give billions in money and military aid to Israel.
9. ...
10. Profit!

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

You all watch too much Fox News.

Also, US foreign policy has never made any sense.

1. Buy sh*t from Eastern Asia where labor is really cheap.
2. F**k Europe.
3. Bomb the Middle East.
4. F**k Russia.
5. Bomb the Middle East some more.
6. F**k Canada and Australia, eh?
7. Immigration is good. Except from Mexico. THEY TOOK OUR JAERBS.
8. Give billions in money and military aid to Israel.
9. ...
10. Profit!

yeah yeah, but that's just hind sight; it has nothing to do with policy.
________
MatureCherry

 

[Big-Al]

PULL MY FINGER

http://www.freewebs.com/socialistcommonwealth/bralds_marx-s (2).jpg

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

________
Ladysex4Y Cam

 

[das_ben]

The modernized western world would probably comply and willingly disarm and get rid of nukes, but what I'm afraid of are the terrorist groups and dictators in the ravaged parts of the world who would not comply and possibly even get ahold of nukes and other weapons. They would use them and if we don't have similar and better weapons we couldn't defend ourselves.

This is not entirely accurate. Nuclear weapons are a largely defensive measure, the very pinnacle of deterrence - the whole point of having them is to be safe from attacks by other states, in fact they're probably the only reason why the Cold War never turned hot and one of the main reasons why Israel can feel fairly safe from major attacks by neighbouring states today. That's also the reason why states that fear attacks by other states (particularly the US) were and are pushing for nuclear weapons - something that worked particularly well for North Korea. While it's still not entirely sure whether the country really does possess nuclear weaponry now, all talk of aggression against it has ceased. Given that, it's also important to point out that new states acquiring nuclear weapons is not a realistic threat to the US itself: warheads are the less complicated part of nuclear technology, the carrier rocket systems are usually very limited in range and will be for decades to come. To give you some kind of perspective, even Britain doesn't have its own carrier rockets and relies on American technology for that. This is also why there is no real threat from terrorists using nuclear weapons. What are they going to do with it, launch it at the US with a slingshot? Smuggling one into the country is also somewhat complicated, considering nuclear weapons tend to come in inconvenient sizes.

On top of that, it's a common misconception that states acquire nuclear weapons in order to use them against hostile countries. The problem with that is obvious: if any nuclear power ever was to its weapons against another nuclear power (or a close ally of a nuclear power), the retaliation would be swift and devastating. All major nuclear powers have a second strike capability that would ensure massive retaliation even if their countries were totally annihilated in a first strike by a hostile nation, another remnant of the Cold War. As everyone involved is well aware of that fact, they certainly will not make use of their nuclear weaponry, even if their rhetoric suggests otherwise (I think it's clear to which country I'm alluding to here).
All that said, it's pretty safe to say that no future president of the United States, including Obama, will make a serious move into dismantling the nuclear potential. It's rhetoric. He (or others) will probably get rid of obsolete systems to show some goodwill, as well as push at least Russia to do the same. I understood the stop of funding of unproven missile systems and the refusal to weaponize space as a stab at the "Star Wars" project, which is not all that inconsequential considering what an utter failure that was. Furthermore, it's certainly a good idea to avoid initiating another arms race. This all will hardly leave America defenseless. As a matter of fact, a new push to limit nuclear proliferation can certainly improve regional stability in the Middle East and East Asia, thus helping American allies in those regions.

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

This is not entirely accurate. Nuclear weapons are a largely defensive measure, the very pinnacle of deterrence - the whole point of having them is to be safe from attacks by other states, in fact they're probably the only reason why the Cold War never turned hot and one of the main reasons why Israel can feel fairly safe from major attacks by neighbouring states today. That's also the reason why states that fear attacks by other states (particularly the US) were and are pushing for nuclear weapons - something that worked particularly well for North Korea. While it's still not entirely sure whether the country really does possess nuclear weaponry now, all talk of aggression against it has ceased. Given that, it's also important to point out that new states acquiring nuclear weapons is not a realistic threat to the US itself: warheads are the less complicated part of nuclear technology, the carrier rocket systems are usually very limited in range and will be for decades to come. To give you some kind of perspective, even Britain doesn't have its own carrier rockets and relies on American technology for that. This is also why there is no real threat from terrorists using nuclear weapons. What are they going to do with it, launch it at the US with a slingshot? Smuggling one into the country is also somewhat complicated, considering nuclear weapons tend to come in inconvenient sizes.

On top of that, it's a common misconception that states acquire nuclear weapons in order to use them against hostile countries. The problem with that is obvious: if any nuclear power ever was to its weapons against another nuclear power (or a close ally of a nuclear power), the retaliation would be swift and devastating. All major nuclear powers have a second strike capability that would ensure massive retaliation even if their countries were totally annihilated in a first strike by a hostile nation, another remnant of the Cold War. As everyone involved is well aware of that fact, they certainly will not make use of their nuclear weaponry, even if their rhetoric suggests otherwise (I think it's clear to which country I'm alluding to here).
All that said, it's pretty safe to say that no future president of the United States, including Obama, will make a serious move into dismantling the nuclear potential. It's rhetoric. He (or others) will probably get rid of obsolete systems to show some goodwill, as well as push at least Russia to do the same. I understood the stop of funding of unproven missile systems and the refusal to weaponize space as a stab at the "Star Wars" project, which is not all that inconsequential considering what an utter failure that was. Furthermore, it's certainly a good idea to avoid initiating another arms race. This all will hardly leave America defenseless. As a matter of fact, a new push to limit nuclear proliferation can certainly improve regional stability in the Middle East and East Asia, thus helping American allies in those regions.

what kind of new push do you propose?
________
VAPORIZER WIKI

 

[das_ben]

I'm not proposing anything, but I gathered from Ilkman's post that Obama suggested a global ban on (trading of, I assume) fissile material. While I'm fairly sure it's not meant as a complete ban of these materials (considering their civilian uses), a more elaborate supervision of the trade and use certainly won't hurt.

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

I agree completely! That's why there should be regulations, and that is why I have complete distrust in Iran amd North Korea...

By the way, whatever happend with North Korea?
It's like they fell off the face of the earth.

Is America = Homer J. Simpson? One threat in, another threat out?
(that's how I feel, but I don't vote for Plumb_Drumb)
________
KOREAN GIRL LIVE

 

[das_ben]

North Korea presumably conducted a nuclear test around two years ago, with unknown/disputed results. This created pressure on all sides to resume the six-party talks and an agreement was reached last autumn that both reduces nuclear tension in the region and guarantees North Korean security.

 

[gregori]

I agree completely! That's why there should be regulations, and that is why I have complete distrust in Iran amd North Korea...

By the way, whatever happend with North Korea?
It's like they fell off the face of the earth.

Is America = Homer J. Simpson? One threat in, another threat out?
(that's how I feel, but I don't vote for Plumb_Drumb)

I would distrust Iran and North Korea! They are trying to aquire the exact same WMD's as everybody else who has them for all the same reasons.

Honestly, Its going to be hard to convince nations like Iran not to aquire nuclear weapons. Firstly, both countries either side of it have recently been invaded. Secondly, after North Korea's little 'test', the US was willing to negotiate all of as sudden! Thirdly, all the powerful countries in the world have them and no threatens to invade them.

If Iran get a nuclear weapon, I highly doubt they will attack Israel. They be wiped out themselves as Israel has 2-300 nuclear weapons, never mind what US, Britain, France and Russia would do to them. The balance of power in the region will change drastically however and the western nations will be forced to negotiate with Iran. Using the millitary threat won't be possible anymore. They will do a deal just like with NK.


Missile Defense Shield is a very scary idea because the status quo of mutually assured destruction kinda keeps nuclear countries in balance. MDS has the potential to start a new arms race. The real advantage of MDS is not as a detterent from a nuclear attack, but as part of a first strike offensive. You attack country X, and if they try retaliate you can block it with your MDS.

 

[Zur]

Honestly, Its going to be hard to convince nations like Iran not to aquire nuclear weapons. Firstly, both countries either side of it have recently been invaded. Secondly, after North Korea's little 'test', the US was willing to negotiate all of as sudden! Thirdly, all the powerful countries in the world have them and no threatens to invade them.

Now people are starting to think. If somehow I was someone in charge in Iran I'd try to get nuclear weapons in as soon as possible. It would seem to be the only dissuasive measure to avoid any invasion. The same goes for North Korea.