USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[MehMan 0]

here, a gift, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Insert where needed.

Bah, socialism is the big boogey man now, is it? Why is McCarthyism etched in stone in the US? Somebody mentions socialised service-X and you all jump on the commies-r-bad boat?

[Viper169th 0]

Hi MehMan,

My point was if you want it get off your rear and get it our governments only job is to defend the country and set laws not welfare you want that they're plenty of countries for you to go I was always taught you want it go get it don't play the victim ...........victims in this circumstance are just lazy nothing more and want everyone else to give them a handout

Sincerely,

Viper

P.S.

McCarthy was before my time but from what I read had a good idea just went tooo far with it + you need to keep it in perspective of the times they lived in not today

[scubaman3D 0]

Why is McCarthyism etched in stone in the US? Somebody mentions socialised service-X and you all jump on the commies-r-bad boat?

because commies-r-bad.

That and the fact we resent freeloaders.

[Second 0]

because commies-r-bad.

And capitalists r stuuuupiiiddd and igggnoraant

[MehMan 0]

McCarthy was before my time but from what I read had a good idea just went tooo far with it + you need to keep it in perspective of the times they lived in not today

You need to read into it better. it wasn't a good idea.

Quote[/b] ]

because commies-r-bad.

That and the fact we resent freeloaders.

What freeloaders? Do you really think people are just lazy and can't afford the doctor? You really think it's all their fault because your system of healthcare is fucked up? Profit should not dictate in medicine and that's what it's doing in the US right now.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Quote[/b] ]because commies-r-bad. That and the fact we resent freeloaders.

lol are you sure spokesperson is not your stepbrother?

[scubaman3D 0]

@NoRailgunner - I don't get the connection

@MehMan - yes, you're right. Freeloaders are lazy - by definition I think. define: freeloader

@Second - not igggnoraant...ignant.  

[Sophion-Black 0]

a squadmate of mine brought up a very good point when i asked him and he seems to think that the risk outwieghs the result. thus it will never happen, at least an actual detonation, which it makes sense.

but as a sidenote: nuclear weapons still exsists and pose a merciles peice of warfare. so DO NOT FORGET we still have the risk of seing them detonate in war again

[MehMan 0]

We also have the risk of using biological and nuclear weapons in war. Guess what, the chances of that actually happening are next to nothing.

[sanctuary 19]

If a war become so intense that nuclear weapons will be used, none will win this war.

That's why nuclear weapons are considered as dissuasion weapons. Their point is to dissuade a possible enemy nation to invade the nation possessing such arsenal : "try to invade us and push us to be in a desesperate situation and your nation will be no more".

Nuclear weapons are not a threat for a terrorist organisation for the simple fact that terrorist organisations are not nations, but multiple groups found hidden in nearly every countries, even in the ones that are directly fighting them.

There is no point to eradicate a precise target under nuclear fire if the goal is to destroy a whole terrorist group, because it will simply not work.

The terrorist group will just lose members that were located in the destroyed target, but the organisation will continue to exist without a problem.

Additionally, if a nation is changing the purpose of his nuclear arsenal from dissuasion to offensive weaponry, this would lead into such an international crisis that it would certainly make the cold war a kindergarden play, because none will trust none anymore if the treaties are broken and betrayed.

Launching a new nuke rearming program everywhere, making the world even more unsafe than it was already.

[4 IN 1 0]

remember the "say sorry to the world because the rest of us is stupid" pictures back in 2004 when Bush wins?

this time we will have half of the US doing the same thing whoever wins

if its McCarthy the phase will be "sorry for being racial"

and if its Obama it will be like:"sorry for being communism"

and most of the US would rather being racial then being communism

[billybob2002 0]

McCain is going to win but it is going to be real close. Some people are going to be butt hurt but they will get over it. Four years ago, I was correct predicting Bush will be reelected. I still remember winning some posts!

[sanctuary 19]

Wasn't there a 3rd candidate ?

I remember there was a mention of someone else at least a year ago, but it seems medias were just all over Obama/McCain since a year or two.

[billybob2002 0]

Wasn't there a 3rd candidate ?

I remember there was a mention of someone else at least a year ago, but it seems medias were just all over Obama/McCain since a year or two.

There are more than three candidates for the presidency.

-Baldwin (Constitution)

-Barr (Libertarian)

-McCain (Republican)

-McKinney (Green)

-Nader (Unaffiliated)

-Obama (Democratic)

McCain and Obama are the "main" candidates. The other four are "minor" candidates because they probably receive a low number of the popular vote and zero electoral votes combined. There are other "minor" candidates but those four are the major "minor" candidates for the Presidency of the United States.

[sanctuary 19]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't know how it works in your country but is there any kind of law that force your country medias to give equal audience time to every candidates so they can at least present their program in a fair way to your country people ?

Or is it just only the richest guys that can buy as much media time as they wants, leaving basically the other poorer candidates with few audience ?

[chops 111]

McCain is going to win but it is going to be real close. Some people are going to be butt hurt but they will get over it. Four years ago, I was correct predicting Bush will be reelected. I still remember winning some posts!

Well whoever wins, I imagine there won't be many tears around the US or the globe to see the back of Dubya. I can still remember watching that whole 2000 election debacle unfold on TV.

[billybob2002 0]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't know how it works in your country but is there any kind of law that force your country medias to give equal audience time to every candidates so they can at least present their program in a fair way to your country people ?

Or is it just only the richest guys that can buy as much media time as they wants, leaving basically the other poorer candidates with few audience ?

Nope to the first question and yeah to the second question. Obama spent millions of dollars to air a 30 min political commercial on every major network channel and some cable news channels simultaneously. The last time someone has done that was Ross Perot back in the early 90s.

[sanctuary 19]

Ah, i see, i understand now why living out of the USA we haven't heard a word about the other alternative candidates, as our medias are mostly talking about Obama, and in a lesser amount of McCain, and very few even knew other candidates are actually existing.

Very unfair system that gives so much audience reaching privileges to the candidates with the most money.

For the anecdote, in the last US election, in my country media most of the news and articles were all about Kerry, his program and projects if he was to be elected, and very few about Bush ones.

So much that if there were bookmaker bets, Kerry was an easy winner at least according to those famous "polls" that usually means nothing the day people are voting.

Now the same treatment is done for Obama, we hear very few about McCain here, so much that again Obama is supposed to win easily those elections always in polls.

So i would really not be surprised to see McCain winning, considering my country medias "guesses" being usually very wrong (and not just about foreign elections, even about our own )

[scubaman3D 0]

I have to admit, I'm really nervous about tomorrow. Imagine the ridicule I will face here if Obama wins

[Lamont 0]

If Mccain wins, the conclusion is:

1. Election is rigged

2. Americans are the dumbest people on this planet., and the easiest to screw around with. How will it be possible for them to elect a president that supported 90% of the Bush policies is beyond me.

There are a few good reasons to vote for Mccain and that involves you being very rich, very stupid, or just a blind loyal, uneducated mofo.

I don't support Obama, but If Mccain wins, the US as you all know it will change forever, for the worst.

4 more years of this shit, and you need a century to recover, and that is IF.

[scubaman3D 0]

Those with no intelligent arguments to make will always resort to insulting their opponent's intelligence.

[sparks50 0]

It will be very exciting, thats for sure.

[0311 0]

I'm not going to say who I'm rooting for, but Obama's going to win. He's just way too popular. He's ahead in all the polls. I see Obama bumber stickers everywhere I go.

[ralphwiggum 6]

McCain is going to win but it is going to be real close. Some people are going to be butt hurt but they will get over it. Four years ago, I was correct predicting Bush will be reelected. I still remember winning some posts!

Oh I look forward to seeing you eat crow.

[Pathy 0]

Can we change his title to Mr Wrong this time?