A Pilot's Perspective On Barack Obama

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

from what I could understand by the following points this was because Obama would lower the military's budget. But all I've been able to see is that he wants to cancel the missile defense system and other extravagant and unneccesary systems. Which suck up too much of the already astronomical 440 billion USD military budget.

Obama doesn't have the knowledge, experience or the people on his staff to adequately advise him on such issues -

BTW at Edwards AFB I SEEN a "Star Wars" test - the technology works and is available and is well worth pursuing.

As far as the 440 billion defense budget - do you have any idea where the money goes, how it's used and how any people are employed because of it?

[renrich]

Isn't it amazing that the left in this country and abroad ignore all the technical advances that have been made by the so called "military industrial complex" as if those people are bad people and are throwing away our tax dollars to no good effect? An example is the little bit of attention paid when the Navy shot down the satelite from an Aegis cruiser. We are no doubt safer in the US because of all these technical advances and that is the paramount task of the federal government.

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Simple:

When you dont allow a child to drive a car - you discriminate children - fair discrimination.

When you don't allow a convicted childmolester to work at a daycare center - you discriminate childmolesters - fair discrimination.

When you do not allow a convicted terrorist to join a flightschool - again fair discrimination.

etc etc..

However:

When you discriminate someone because of their skincolour - then there is no fair explanation.

OK, semantics, I get it, but an unusual usage of the word "discrimination.

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

But all I've been able to see is that he wants to cancel the missile defense system and other extravagant and unneccesary systems. Which suck up too much of the already astronomical 440 billion USD military budget.

What I'd like you to explain is the following.....

How do you know "Star Wars" is unnecessary? And what are the "other extravagant and unneccesary systems" you speak of? Also, how much do YOU think we should spend on our defense budget?

TO

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

It all started because I was told that I was discriminating McCain because of his age. And yes I am. People in his age group - although experienced - are often too set in their ways and lack new ideas (the man cannot use a computer).

Good then dont vote for someone like that in your country. If we Americans want someone like him, then that is our right and it does not matter what people in Denmark want.

Also please show proof that he can not use a computer. I find that very hard to believe...

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Good then dont vote for someone like that in your country. If we Americans want someone like him, then that is our right and it does not matter what people in Denmark want.

Also please show proof that he can not use a computer. I find that very hard to believe...

The discrimination point has already been explained - scroll up.

He himself has admitted that he cannot use a computer.

YouTube - John Mccain Admits He Cant Use a Computer

Good lord - ease up - ofcourse its your right. I'm just saying why I wouldn't do it. This is a thread on US politics - but if its only for US citizens just say so..

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by renrich

Maybe all this foregoing dialogue should be an example to all of you non American citizens to walk and talk a little more softly about our politics in the US. It seems comical to me when I hear some poster from a socialist country pontificating about our system. All of you who think that Obama is such a wonderful candidate, please list all of his qualifications for the job of president of the most powerful nation on earth! As far as politics being dirty in the US, get out your history books and look at some of the political cartoons when Lincoln was running or later became the president. When Goldwater was running against Johnson the dimocrats ran an ad with a little girl and an atomic bomb going off intimating that Goldwater would bring on nuclear warfare. The bitterness and polarization you see now is somewhat typical except it has been exacerbated by the belief of the dimocrats that they were robbed of the election in 2000 and by the disappointment brought about by the personal indiscretions of their fair haired boy, Slick Willy. The other factor playing a role in the rabid behavior of the dimocrats is that the leadership and control of that party has fallen into the hands of the far left and they sense an opportunity, if they can elect an arguably, marxist and racist Obama, along with a left wing congress, they can move this country more rapidly toward a collectivist society with the attendent weakness in our military. You foreigners who love freedom and liberty should get out your worry beads!

Ren, I wasn't about to ridicule the US politics, but it's so different, it almost is incomprehensible for me. I never understood for instance what difference it makes what Bill did what he did with his student. Who cares? It's the policy he's making IMHO. And there are more examples that I don't understand, being the first post in this thread as well.

Here in the NL, you vote for a party usually, not for a person like you do in the US. Of course there's always a person who is the representative of the party, the party leader, and he usually becomes prime minister if his party gets the most votes. But he as an individual is never as important as it is in your country. A prime minister is also less powerful in our country than you president in yours. The campaigns are therefore much less personal than in the US.
I must admit, this is slightly changing, the last few years, see the murder on Pim Fortuyn a few years ago. This is because of the populistic movement that is coming up, only saying what the mass wants to hear, without any long-term solutions. They usually form parties around a strong person, to the image of Fortuyn, see herefor for instance Geert Wilders.

[renrich]

As if I needed another reason to NOT vote for Hussein Obama, I just found one. Just got back from downtown Durango, Colorado. On main street, they have portable signs put out by the town saying "stop for pedestrians in cross walks" at all the intersections. Many of the signs have large stickers put on them saying "Obama 08" Some of these stickers partially cover the message on the signs. The stickers at the bottom have move on.org printed on them. Of course that org. is largely funded by George Soros a multi millionaire anti capitalist leftist. Probably a good bud of yours, Dan. Aside from the fact the stickers cover some of the message on the sign so it may be a public hazard it shows one a lot about the mindset and judgment of the Obama backers. All who want to be identified with that type, be my guest.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

The discrimination point has already been explained - scroll up.

He himself has admitted that he cannot use a computer.

YouTube - John Mccain Admits He Cant Use a Computer

Good lord - ease up - ofcourse its your right. I'm just saying why I wouldn't do it. This is a thread on US politics - but if its only for US citizens just say so..

I find that very hard to believe. I believe that vid is photo shopped.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

I don't hold it against France and Britain for their reluctance to confront Hitler. Their WW1 experience was fresh on their minds and the socialist government in Britain had disarmed so they needed time to get ready. The simple fact is though that if they had been ready and able to go to war when the Nazis began their schemes WW2 might have been prevented. If Obama is elected we may find ourselves in a similar position 8 years from now. A US military weakened by budget cuts so as to fund social programs and an administration lacking the will to take a stand against a (for example) China deciding to use it's newly built military to further it's economic goals. Dan, I don't have time or the inclination to destroy all of your opinions which you use to support your socialistic (clearly you are at best a socialist) positions. Fact: the US was heading into a recession in 2000. It was called the dot com bubble and it officially began in March, 2001, was exacerbated by the attacks of 9/11 but monetary policy by the Fed and fiscal policy by President Bush and a Repub congress helped make the recession relatively mild and led to 52 months of GDP growth, a record. Look it up if you don't believe me. For your information, we are still not in a recession here in the US as you and your dimocrat buds and the media would like to claim.

LOL - Chamberlain and Baldwin where Socialist??? Ok - i get it - everything you disagree with is socialist?

Why on earth would China use agressive military force?

Im not a socialist - Do not impose totalitarian political views on me!

I know about the dotcom crisis - but do you really think that this has been the only factor of the recent years recession - and that the bush administration has "eased" the drop?

[renrich]

Marcel, our politics may be uncomprehensible to you just as your's may seem the same for me. I would hesitate to comment on politics in your country or others even closer to the US such as Mexico or Canada. Going to the Slick Willy-Monica Lewinsky matter, consider this. If the CEO of a public corporation in the US were caught having sex with one of his female employees in his office whether the CEO was married or not and whether the employee was a minor or not, that CEO would suffer extreme repercussions. He would probably be terminated. He would probably have sexual harrassment charges filed against him. If he was a Republican, he would be pilloried by the media and would be sued by the feminist groups. Why would we make an exception for the president of the US? What does it say about the judgment and morals of a man who takes advantage of a young girl who is 30 years at least his junior? What does it say about the respect he has for the office of the presidency? I am no longer married and am as randy as the next guy and no paragon of morality either but I hired a very attractive ( much better looking than Lewinsky) 30 something young single lady who worked for me a few years ago and I was uncomfortable running into her by accident at a bar and having a drink because I feared she might think I was using my position as her superior to put a move on her. I have two grown daughters and I would probably go after a man who did to them what Clinton to Monica. Do you think that Clinton thought about his daughter in a similar situation when he unzipped his pants?

[renrich]

You impose you own views on yourself. I subscribe to the "duck theorem" if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. You use all the arguments of the lefties, so you are one. I used to have an old dog down in Texas. He was so stupid and hard headed that he did not know the difference between "come here" and "sick em" so he was useless. We had to get rid of him.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I find that very hard to believe. I believe that vid is photo shopped.

Well - its not - was a big story even over here. But if I had to make a guess fox didn't find it newsworthy...

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

You impose you own views on yourself. I subscribe to the "duck theorem" if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. You use all the arguments of the lefties, so you are one. I used to have an old dog down in Texas. He was so stupid and hard headed that he did not know the difference between "come here" and "sick em" so he was useless. We had to get rid of him.

ok - moderator time...

[Marcel]

Hi Ren, I was not trying to comment on your system, so sorry if I came across like that. Systems are what they are lands wise and I once had a pleasant discussion with you and some others about the differences between Europe and the US.
I'm still however interested in our differences as you might recall. I agree with you that Clinton was (and is?) a scumbag first class and he had no buisiness doing what he did. What I do find interesting is that this event still pops up when judging him as a president. He might have been bad for your country, and you can be a better judge on that than me. But why did the republicans need a scandal like that to get rid of him? Was him being a bad president not a big enough weapon to defeat the Democrats then? Did his affair with Monica affect his politics?

Originally Posted by renrich

You impose you own views on yourself. I subscribe to the "duck theorem" if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. You use all the arguments of the lefties, so you are one. I used to have an old dog down in Texas. He was so stupid and hard headed that he did not know the difference between "come here" and "sick em" so he was useless. We had to get rid of him.

I suppose this wasn't directed to me?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by renrich

You impose you own views on yourself. I subscribe to the "duck theorem" if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. You use all the arguments of the lefties, so you are one. I used to have an old dog down in Texas. He was so stupid and hard headed that he did not know the difference between "come here" and "sick em" so he was useless. We had to get rid of him.

Chill out.

You are starting to take this too personal.