President Obama

[Enoch]

I did hear more about the "opps" during the oath and I was correct, it was The Chief Justice and not Obama who gaffed.

Yeah, the required oath is in Article II of the Constitution. Roberts botched it a bit, and the two of them stumbled to the end.

 

I only watched for about a half-hour. I did go downtown on Monday, to have lunch with a friend who was in town for the big event, but that's as close as I wanted to get to all the crowds.

[Guard Dog]

Krezack is correct. It will not happen and Rangel is trying to get a rise out of everyone (admittedly so was I). However, he is not some lone nutjob on the fringe of his party. He is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee and the third most powerful member of the House of Representatives. Coming from him automatically makes this an issue worth of discussion. I just find t deliciously ironic that after all the Democrats screaming about Bush bringing back the draft, it's only been Democrats that have actually attempted to do it.

 

Excitabat fluctus in simpulo.

[Laozi]

I think probably anyone who was 17-28 was a little worried about Bush reinstating the draft. IIRC mostly it was housewives getting worked up about the ideas that their babies could be taken away, not necessarily one particular group of housewives affiliated with one of the two major parties.

[taks]

You already pay taxes, and you have to have an education, homeschooled or not.

of course, people like me happen to disagree with both of the first two points (income tax and forced education) so i can legitimately claim compulsory service takes away my freedom (i don't, btw).

 

i have no problem with a draft, however, in times of need. now is not a time of need in spite of pleas to the contrary. ww2 was a time of need. people like rangel merely prop this crap up for political reasons.

 

taks

[Yuusha]

IMHO Obama is potentially far more dangerous than Bush.

 

I really hope I'm wrong on this.

[Gfted1]

^Why do you feel that way?

[taks]

because of the rampant obama love fest going on?

 

taks

[Yuusha]

Read what I'm about to say with a closed mind. If you can, please convince me otherwise.

 

Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words.

 

There is an 'image' that Obama is against war right, but I don't think he is. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary 'Let's bomb 'em' Clinton as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. So that's the 'change we can believe in', then.

 

This is just my opinion, but I think Obama isn't against war at all and he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.

 

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected.' He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope' 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean.

 

But Obama is a different story.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

IMHO Obama is potentially far more dangerous than Bush.

 

Lolz.

[Gfted1]

Read what I'm about to say with a closed mind. If you can, please convince me otherwise.

 

Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words.

 

Agreed but thats nothing new. What you say to get into office will often not jive with the realities of the position.

 

There is an 'image' that Obama is against war right, but I don't think he is. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary 'Let's bomb 'em' Clinton as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. So that's the 'change we can believe in', then.

 

This is just my opinion, but I think Obama isn't against war at all and he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.

 

I dont think he's against war per se as much as he is against the Iraq war. Unlike Iraq, there is no ambiguity regarding Afghanistan's involvement with sponsored terrorism.

 

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale.

 

What should really make your sphincter pucker up is the almost supermajority Obama has. THATS scary.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Gfted1

[Wrath of Dagon]

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

[Meshugger]

You already pay taxes, and you have to have an education, homeschooled or not.

of course, people like me happen to disagree with both of the first two points (income tax and forced education) so i can legitimately claim compulsory service takes away my freedom (i don't, btw).

 

i have no problem with a draft, however, in times of need. now is not a time of need in spite of pleas to the contrary. ww2 was a time of need. people like rangel merely prop this crap up for political reasons.

 

taks

 

As always, you're the exception

[Meshugger]

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

 

Wait what? "Balls" you say?

 

You mean Truman in the middle of a debriefing in the war room, pulled down his pants and smacked his balls and salami on the table? "Look at the size my balls! They're huuuuuge! They're big as a clocktower bell! You know what these balls say? They say that we need to nuke the japs ASAP! Any further questions? Otherwise you can discuss this matter with my balls in person!"

 

For the love of god, please refrain from using the term "Balls" in any sentence, except for homo-erotic appriciations of man-heroes. "Balls" and politics never go together, ever. A governing body is expected to act accordingly to the information existing, in very wise and careful manner. Warfare is always the last resort, always.

[mkreku]

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

So basically you're saying it's manly to bomb another nation? Or that it takes courage to send out other people to drop bombs on something?

 

Wow.

[taks]

As always, you're the exception

in here, i'm one of them, but not everywhere.

 

either way, the argument is specious. it's like saying "well, they're already taking away most of your rights, what's the harm in a few more?" there's a point at which you say enough is enough.

 

oh, and btw, it did take a lot of courage, balls if you will, for truman to do what he did. none of us could even begin to imagine the responsibility that comes with having your finger on a trigger that holds in the balance so many lives. it takes courage to evaluate a situation objectively, rationally, in spite of any emotion you might feel toward the situation. to react emotionally could wind up being worse in the long run.

 

taks

[mkreku]

oh, and btw, it did take a lot of courage, balls if you will, for truman to do what he did. none of us could even begin to imagine the responsibility that comes with having your finger on a trigger that holds in the balance so many lives. it takes courage to evaluate a situation objectively, rationally, in spite of any emotion you might feel toward the situation.

And as usual you have an opinion about stuff you obviously have no clue about.. There are countless of psychological studies that show how common people can do the most atrocious acts as long as they're abstract. Abstract as in, push a button, someone will get electrocuted (although you will never see/hear the results) and you win $100. How abstract do you think it is to sign a paper sending tens of thousands of innocent people to a horrible death? He didn't have a trigger, he didn't hear the blast, he probably wasn't even awake when the bombs were dropped. You think he had nightmares over it? I think not.

 

It didn't take any courage to sign that piece of paper. Going against the (at the time) populist winds would have taken courage as it would have been deemed unpatriotic.. and you can't have that in a war nation like the US of A.

 

It takes balls to do the right thing even when it's not the most popular thing to do in the minds of people.

[taks]

There are countless of psychological studies that show how common people can do the most atrocious acts as long as they're abstract.

wow, countless.

 

and then there's truman's own words at how difficult it really was.

 

your "countless psychological studies" that have no basis other than opinion polls, and essentially amount to cargo cult science, and the words of the only man that's ever actually "pushed the button."

 

it also takes brains to be able to think critically. i wish there were more of that in the world.

 

taks

[taks]

It takes balls to do the right thing even when it's not the most popular thing to do in the minds of people.

btw, this part is actually correct, but you simply assume that pushing the button, or whatever it happens to be, is the "wrong" thing. you also apparently did not read what i said:

 

it takes courage to evaluate a situation objectively, rationally, in spite of any emotion you might feel toward the situation. to react emotionally could wind up being worse in the long run.

in other words, i said exactly the same thing as you did right here, yet i'm commenting on things i don't understand.

 

you really take the cake for a lack of ability to understand an argument.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

I think you two need to get a room...

...and a thesaurus.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Back to Obama!

 

The Obama Action Figure: http://i.gizmodo.com/photogallery/bestobamaactionfigure/

[Humodour]

oh, and btw, it did take a lot of courage, balls if you will, for truman to do what he did. none of us could even begin to imagine the responsibility that comes with having your finger on a trigger that holds in the balance so many lives. it takes courage to evaluate a situation objectively, rationally, in spite of any emotion you might feel toward the situation.

And as usual you have an opinion about stuff you obviously have no clue about.

 

Hahaha.

 

There are countless of psychological studies that show how common people can do the most atrocious acts as long as they're abstract.

 

Yeah, I've seen some of those before. Chilling stuff.

[Wrath of Dagon]

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

 

Wait what? "Balls" you say?

 

You mean Truman in the middle of a debriefing in the war room, pulled down his pants and smacked his balls and salami on the table? "Look at the size my balls! They're huuuuuge! They're big as a clocktower bell! You know what these balls say? They say that we need to nuke the japs ASAP! Any further questions? Otherwise you can discuss this matter with my balls in person!"

How did you know? That's exactly what happened!

For the love of god, please refrain from using the term "Balls" in any sentence, except for homo-erotic appriciations of man-heroes. "Balls" and politics never go together, ever. A governing body is expected to act accordingly to the information existing, in very wise and careful manner. Warfare is always the last resort, always.

Yes it is, and it takes balls to go to that last resort. Otherwise you're Chamberlain, not Churchill.

[Humodour]

Yes it is, and it takes balls to go to that last resort. Otherwise you're Chamberlain, not Churchill.

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't get it.

[Trenitay]

So it takes balls to go right to the last resort?