Political Pet Peeves
- Thread starter mike22cha
- Start date
jerthunter
Active Member
My political pet peeve is..
-lists of political pet peeves.
-lists of political pet peeves.
freeweights
Member
Well my though is this .... When you get a new job they give you a trial period of 90 days. If you say you can do the job you are hired for, and you don't ,you are out of there. Well why not do that to a newly elected president ? if you don't do something you say you will do when you are running, in the first 90 days YOU'R OUT..........NEXT. Tell you anything you want to hear just for you'r vote. Then ....They don't have the problems that we have so why should they care once they are in office. When is the last time BUSH took out his credit card and payed for gas for his limo??? bet if he didnt hear on the news the price of gas he wouldn't even know. When is the last time BUSH went grocery shopping??? Come on people the gov takes all of our money and instead of fixing thing here in this country. they piss it away on country's that could care less obout the USA. We need someone with guts, someone who will NOT buckle down to to the wants and needs of other countries. Take care of ''rite here''. It's great to be generous but charity starts at home. WW2 we liberated allmost all of europe and kicked butt on Germany and Japan. 3 years we are wstill fighting iraq for 4 years. Why can'r a so called SUPER POWER win a war anymore????? With all the tec we have now compared to WW2 we should have had our troops home in a week.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Democracy's don't work, this was tried before.
The U.S, is a representative Republic....NOT democracy.
The U.S, is a representative Republic....NOT democracy.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by freeweights
.... Take care of ''rite here''. It's great to be generous but charity starts at home. WW2 we liberated allmost all of europe and kicked butt on Germany and Japan. 3 years we are wstill fighting iraq for 4 years. Why can'r a so called SUPER POWER win a war anymore????? With all the tec we have now compared to WW2 we should have had our troops home in a week.
First off, how is the President responsible for the price of a barrel of oil?
That said, your example of WW2 is faulty. WW2 took almost 4 years to complete. (December 41 to Sept. 45) After the war was over, we "occupied" and "rebuilt" those countries for 10+ years afterwards. Based on that comparison we're well ahead of schedule in Iraq...
Furthermore, comparing warfare WW2 style to today is crazy. Do you know how war was fought in WW2? Read up a bit on the War. Google the "Dresden firestorm" for instance. In WW2 civilians were seen as legitimate targets. Today we fight differently.
Could the world's only superpower have "had our troops home in a week"? Absolutely. To our credit, we no longer fight wars like that....
.... Take care of ''rite here''. It's great to be generous but charity starts at home. WW2 we liberated allmost all of europe and kicked butt on Germany and Japan. 3 years we are wstill fighting iraq for 4 years. Why can'r a so called SUPER POWER win a war anymore????? With all the tec we have now compared to WW2 we should have had our troops home in a week.
First off, how is the President responsible for the price of a barrel of oil?
That said, your example of WW2 is faulty. WW2 took almost 4 years to complete. (December 41 to Sept. 45) After the war was over, we "occupied" and "rebuilt" those countries for 10+ years afterwards. Based on that comparison we're well ahead of schedule in Iraq...
Furthermore, comparing warfare WW2 style to today is crazy. Do you know how war was fought in WW2? Read up a bit on the War. Google the "Dresden firestorm" for instance. In WW2 civilians were seen as legitimate targets. Today we fight differently.
Could the world's only superpower have "had our troops home in a week"? Absolutely. To our credit, we no longer fight wars like that....
freeweights
Member
The term war remains the same today as it did back then. you have a enemy you either kill off you enemy, or you'r enemy kills you.End of story. No more enemies till next time.Do it and get it over with and get our men and woman in the service, HOME. Where are the so called high teck weapons??? They are using primitive weapons against us and very successfully at that. If you have to sell democracy at "gunpoint "and those people don't want it. Why waste out troops lives on it. And by the way no other country picked sides when we fought our civil war. Let them fight it out among themselves. Get back to taking care of this nation and it's people.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by freeweights
The term war remains the same today as it did back then. you have a enemy you either kill off you enemy, or you'r enemy kills you.End of story. No more enemies till next time.Do it and get it over with and get our men and woman in the service, HOME. Where are the so called high teck weapons??? They are using primitive weapons against us and very successfully at that. If you have to sell democracy at "gunpoint "and those people don't want it. Why waste out troops lives on it. And by the way no other country picked sides when we fought our civil war. Let them fight it out among themselves. Get back to taking care of this nation and it's people.
You dodged the question on how the President is responsible for the price of a barrel of oil....
The definition of war is the same, but the tactics are not. Should we resort to wearing redcoats and marching in columns into battle? Of course not. Tactics change as technology changes. We have the technology to obliterate Iraq. Heck, we have the technology to obliterate the world. Should we use it? We certainly have the technology to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq without sending a single soldier overseas. Should we? i'll grant you that civilians will die in any military conflict. That is unavoidable. They should never be targetted, however. And make no mistake about it; they were targetted in WW2.
We are not selling democracy at gunpoint. Many of the Iraqis do want freedom. The fact that so many of them voted in the face of bombings and assasinations should prove that to any doubters. If you don't accept that, then, look to the many provinces in iraq where Democracy is working...
Lastly, there is a lot more going on in Iraq than a simple civil war. For one thing, a lot of other nations ARE picking sides and fueling the insurgents.
The term war remains the same today as it did back then. you have a enemy you either kill off you enemy, or you'r enemy kills you.End of story. No more enemies till next time.Do it and get it over with and get our men and woman in the service, HOME. Where are the so called high teck weapons??? They are using primitive weapons against us and very successfully at that. If you have to sell democracy at "gunpoint "and those people don't want it. Why waste out troops lives on it. And by the way no other country picked sides when we fought our civil war. Let them fight it out among themselves. Get back to taking care of this nation and it's people.
You dodged the question on how the President is responsible for the price of a barrel of oil....
The definition of war is the same, but the tactics are not. Should we resort to wearing redcoats and marching in columns into battle? Of course not. Tactics change as technology changes. We have the technology to obliterate Iraq. Heck, we have the technology to obliterate the world. Should we use it? We certainly have the technology to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq without sending a single soldier overseas. Should we? i'll grant you that civilians will die in any military conflict. That is unavoidable. They should never be targetted, however. And make no mistake about it; they were targetted in WW2.
We are not selling democracy at gunpoint. Many of the Iraqis do want freedom. The fact that so many of them voted in the face of bombings and assasinations should prove that to any doubters. If you don't accept that, then, look to the many provinces in iraq where Democracy is working...
Lastly, there is a lot more going on in Iraq than a simple civil war. For one thing, a lot of other nations ARE picking sides and fueling the insurgents.
mfp1016
Member
Originally Posted by freeweights
Well my though is this .... When you get a new job they give you a trial period of 90 days. If you say you can do the job you are hired for, and you don't ,you are out of there. Well why not do that to a newly elected president ? if you don't do something you say you will do when you are running, in the first 90 days YOU'R OUT..........NEXT. Tell you anything you want to hear just for you'r vote. Then ....They don't have the problems that we have so why should they care once they are in office. When is the last time BUSH took out his credit card and payed for gas for his limo??? bet if he didnt hear on the news the price of gas he wouldn't even know. When is the last time BUSH went grocery shopping??? Come on people the gov takes all of our money and instead of fixing thing here in this country. they piss it away on country's that could care less obout the USA. We need someone with guts, someone who will NOT buckle down to to the wants and needs of other countries. Take care of ''rite here''. It's great to be generous but charity starts at home. WW2 we liberated allmost all of europe and kicked butt on Germany and Japan. 3 years we are wstill fighting iraq for 4 years. Why can'r a so called SUPER POWER win a war anymore????? With all the tec we have now compared to WW2 we should have had our troops home in a week.
You're absolutely right, why are we going about this so haphazardly, we have 32,000 nuclear weapons collecting dust....I'm all for using them. But no we have to be politcally correct about things. I say we develop an enormous spatula and flip the middle east over like a huge pancake...
Well my though is this .... When you get a new job they give you a trial period of 90 days. If you say you can do the job you are hired for, and you don't ,you are out of there. Well why not do that to a newly elected president ? if you don't do something you say you will do when you are running, in the first 90 days YOU'R OUT..........NEXT. Tell you anything you want to hear just for you'r vote. Then ....They don't have the problems that we have so why should they care once they are in office. When is the last time BUSH took out his credit card and payed for gas for his limo??? bet if he didnt hear on the news the price of gas he wouldn't even know. When is the last time BUSH went grocery shopping??? Come on people the gov takes all of our money and instead of fixing thing here in this country. they piss it away on country's that could care less obout the USA. We need someone with guts, someone who will NOT buckle down to to the wants and needs of other countries. Take care of ''rite here''. It's great to be generous but charity starts at home. WW2 we liberated allmost all of europe and kicked butt on Germany and Japan. 3 years we are wstill fighting iraq for 4 years. Why can'r a so called SUPER POWER win a war anymore????? With all the tec we have now compared to WW2 we should have had our troops home in a week.
You're absolutely right, why are we going about this so haphazardly, we have 32,000 nuclear weapons collecting dust....I'm all for using them. But no we have to be politcally correct about things. I say we develop an enormous spatula and flip the middle east over like a huge pancake...
freeweights
Member
Why spend out taxpayers money on technology if we are not going to utilize it. What a waste. This is the best country in the entire world but we need leaders that are willing to spend out tax dollars on renewing the infrastructure here. All the money we give other countries is a nice gesture but if we just held back all that money for one year, i'm sure they would understand, and use it here for bridges, schools, prisons,highways,water supplies, just to mention a few, I can't believe that Fl. has a water shortage . The Government could install desalinisation plants with some of that money. many things we could do to rebuild this great nation. Then again we give money away to the less fortunate.. Well if this keeps up "WE " will become the less fortunate and then we will see who helps us....
scgator
Member
Freeweights...we spend money on military technology to keep aggressor nations from attacking us. Do you think the USSR held back because our diplomats were smooth talkers? Or China?
I do agree with you on the point of foriegn aid to hostile countries. I see no reason to waste money on the african warlords. At this point all we are doing is supplying the warlords and not the starving people. Perhaps we should curtail the aid in favor of spending it at home. Or maybe we should send engineers and agriculture specialists to build infrastructure so these nations can support themselves. I don't know the perfect solution.
Mfp, if you think it's bad now then drop those bombs and watch the WORLD attack us. I believe that even our allies would turn against us if we did that. We are a strong nation, but I'm not sure we could defend against that kind of attacking power without, literally, destroying the earth.
I do agree with you on the point of foriegn aid to hostile countries. I see no reason to waste money on the african warlords. At this point all we are doing is supplying the warlords and not the starving people. Perhaps we should curtail the aid in favor of spending it at home. Or maybe we should send engineers and agriculture specialists to build infrastructure so these nations can support themselves. I don't know the perfect solution.
Mfp, if you think it's bad now then drop those bombs and watch the WORLD attack us. I believe that even our allies would turn against us if we did that. We are a strong nation, but I'm not sure we could defend against that kind of attacking power without, literally, destroying the earth.
1journeyman
Active Member
Technology is used as a deterrent. I'm sure most of the folks around here who have been in combat would agree they want the best support and equipment; but they'd rather not have to use it. Is that a waste? Of course not.
Many of the issues you're talking about could and should be dealt with at the state level. The Constitution never meant for the Feds to be supplying water in Georgia or building levees around New Orleans, fighting fires in California, or rebuilding private homes along the Gulf Coast after every hurricane season.
Issues like highways need to be upgraded, I agree.
Schools, prisons, etc. again should be handled at the State level.
Many of the issues you're talking about could and should be dealt with at the state level. The Constitution never meant for the Feds to be supplying water in Georgia or building levees around New Orleans, fighting fires in California, or rebuilding private homes along the Gulf Coast after every hurricane season.
Issues like highways need to be upgraded, I agree.
Schools, prisons, etc. again should be handled at the State level.
stdreb27
Active Member
Please read the constitution. And tell me where desalination plants fit into this, maybe, just maybe, if people depended on themselves, instead of waiting for their "constitutional right" of Ray Nagan to drive you out of harms way in a short yellow school bus. Then the world would be a better place.
mfp1016
Member
Wow, you really didn't see the joke? That says enough...
Oh on another note, people who aren't engineers should not give their opinions about how to provide water, energy or anything of the like. A little research will show you the incredible inefficiency provided by desalination, its not running a filter and physically removing the salt. Plus, for desalination to work it requires huge amounts of energy which can be provided via local electrical company (but they never have the capabilities) or natural gas; which would equate to the usage of even more energy. People never consider the conservation of energy when considering "solutions" to water and power problems.
Oh on another note, people who aren't engineers should not give their opinions about how to provide water, energy or anything of the like. A little research will show you the incredible inefficiency provided by desalination, its not running a filter and physically removing the salt. Plus, for desalination to work it requires huge amounts of energy which can be provided via local electrical company (but they never have the capabilities) or natural gas; which would equate to the usage of even more energy. People never consider the conservation of energy when considering "solutions" to water and power problems.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
Wow, you really didn't see the joke? That says enough...
Oh on another note, people who aren't engineers should not give their opinions about how to provide water, energy or anything of the like. A little research will show you the incredible inefficiency provided by desalination, its not running a filter and physically removing the salt. Plus, for desalination to work it requires huge amounts of energy which can be provided via local electrical company (but they never have the capabilities) or natural gas; which would equate to the usage of even more energy. People never consider the conservation of energy when considering "solutions" to water and power problems.
the tech is there to harness the flow of the water to provide power.
there is my joke.
Wow, you really didn't see the joke? That says enough...
Oh on another note, people who aren't engineers should not give their opinions about how to provide water, energy or anything of the like. A little research will show you the incredible inefficiency provided by desalination, its not running a filter and physically removing the salt. Plus, for desalination to work it requires huge amounts of energy which can be provided via local electrical company (but they never have the capabilities) or natural gas; which would equate to the usage of even more energy. People never consider the conservation of energy when considering "solutions" to water and power problems.
the tech is there to harness the flow of the water to provide power.
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Democracy's don't work, this was tried before.
The U.S, is a representative Republic....NOT democracy.
I totaly agree with that, but looking at the defenition they are the same thing. In reality they are different and yes we're a republic. But try telling Bush we need to spread Republicanism in the Middle East LOL.
Democracy's don't work, this was tried before.
The U.S, is a representative Republic....NOT democracy.
I totaly agree with that, but looking at the defenition they are the same thing. In reality they are different and yes we're a republic. But try telling Bush we need to spread Republicanism in the Middle East LOL.