GatewayRedbirds.com

KyCardinalFan wrote:Here's a humorous look at how irrational both sides' supporters have gotten.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... es-of-fear

This is very sad and unhealthy. AD's program for America: everyone must participate in a 30 Days style experience.

Do you all think either one of these guys will do anything they say they will? For instance, do you all think if Obama is elected we will be energy independent (or at least well on our way) within 10 years? Do you think the middle class will see a tax break? If McCain is elected, do you think corporations will see a 10% tax cut? Do you think the troops will have a better chance of winning the war and coming home with their "honor"?

From the who will you vote for thread, here'es my response to Clement's request:

Clinton completely halted military development while in office. He tried to revitalize the obsolete ABM treaty rather than invest in anti-missile defense systems that provide REAL security to Americans. Evidence even suggests he sold advanced missile technology to China while in office. The whole Somalian conflict demonstrated how half-assed he ran the military while in office.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Do you all think either one of these guys will do anything they say they will? For instance, do you all think if Obama is elected we will be energy independent (or at least well on our way) within 10 years? Do you think the middle class will see a tax break? If McCain is elected, do you think corporations will see a 10% tax cut? Do you think the troops will have a better chance of winning the war and coming home with their "honor"?

In the near term, I would say that whatever programs Obama proposes have more of a chance of happening than McCain's, just because Democrats will hold a fairly large majority in both the House and Senate. I don't think many of McCain's plans would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing through that congress.

That said, some of Obama's bigger plans like healthcare would be a different story, because opinions vary so much even within the Democratic party. And goals like "energy independence" would depend on if the plans/tax breaks/programs, etc. are effective in truly cutting down oil consumption, and/or increasing production.

cards2468 wrote:He tried to revitalize the obsolete ABM treaty rather than invest in anti-missile defense systems that provide REAL security to Americans.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but Clinton was highly supportive of missile "defense". He did delay deployment of a non-functional system. Frankly, I would have preferred he canceled this attempt to escalate the arms race.

cards2468 wrote:From the who will you vote for thread, here'es my response to Clement's request:

Clinton completely halted military development while in office. He tried to revitalize the obsolete ABM treaty rather than invest in anti-missile defense systems that provide REAL security to Americans. Evidence even suggests he sold advanced missile technology to China while in office. The whole Somalian conflict demonstrated how half-assed he ran the military while in office.

So, then what about Desert Fox?

And if the Somalian conflict means a piss poor run military, how the hell can someone begin to explain our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan right now?

Popeye_Card wrote:
In the near term, I would say that whatever programs Obama proposes have more of a chance of happening than McCain's, just because Democrats will hold a fairly large majority in both the House and Senate. I don't think many of McCain's plans would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing through that congress.

That said, some of Obama's bigger plans like healthcare would be a different story, because opinions vary so much even within the Democratic party. And goals like "energy independence" would depend on if the plans/tax breaks/programs, etc. are effective in truly cutting down oil consumption, and/or increasing production.

Ha. I started to give my thoughts as well and word for word they echoed McCain doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell b/c of the Congress.

That said, I also don't think much will be able to happen for Obama in getting tax cuts approved. I think whoever is the next president will inherit this cluster [expletive] and be forced to raise taxes to pay for this mess. Thus, I think Obama who is more than likely going to win will be in a tough situation. He's a democrat and the democrats are not known to be tax cutters anyway. When he ran saying he would lower taxes for the middle class and then has to raise him, it might set the democratic party back quite a ways through no fault of their own....

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:So, then what about Desert Fox?

What does Rommel have to do with it?

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

cards2468 wrote:From the who will you vote for thread, here'es my response to Clement's request:

Clinton completely halted military development while in office. He tried to revitalize the obsolete ABM treaty rather than invest in anti-missile defense systems that provide REAL security to Americans. Evidence even suggests he sold advanced missile technology to China while in office. The whole Somalian conflict demonstrated how half-assed he ran the military while in office.

So, then what about Desert Fox?

And if the Somalian conflict means a piss poor run military, how the hell can someone begin to explain our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan right now?

We're following through with what we started rather than pulling out in the heat of conflict, I see no correlation what-so-ever in what you're pointing out

cards2468 wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

cards2468 wrote:From the who will you vote for thread, here'es my response to Clement's request:

Clinton completely halted military development while in office. He tried to revitalize the obsolete ABM treaty rather than invest in anti-missile defense systems that provide REAL security to Americans. Evidence even suggests he sold advanced missile technology to China while in office. The whole Somalian conflict demonstrated how half-assed he ran the military while in office.

So, then what about Desert Fox?

And if the Somalian conflict means a piss poor run military, how the hell can someone begin to explain our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan right now?

We're following through with what we started rather than pulling out in the heat of conflict, I see no correlation what-so-ever in what you're pointing out

So getting our military engaged in ill-advised conflicts isn't part of doing a lousy job of running a military? By the way, it was G WH Bush not Clinton who got us in Somalia as well and sold it to the American public as a humanitarian mission.