• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World War 3 possible Ukraine-Russia?

DaveFagan said:
The first step is a survey. How much property you own in Ukraine? Wars are run with machines and machines run on energy, ergo Big Enetgy makes first profits. Wars run on money borrowed to pay for Big Energy and Armaments provided by the Military/Industrial/Corporate complex and Big Banks profit on Big Borrowed money. I rest my case. You would be required to provide links to dispute common sense. Be my guest. Keep in mind that $2 Trillion of our debt is paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures (borrowed money).
Click to expand...

What? First, even if you were right, you understand I make six figures working for the Department of Defense. So even if you were right (you're not), your argument that I don't benefit would be wrong. That 2 trillion dollars? Part of it is the position that I fill. So yeah, keep it up.

But the larger issue is that you just assume that US corporations don't bring money into the US economy. Is the economy important to you?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
What? First, even if you were right, you understand I make six figures working for the Department of Defense. So even if you were right (you're not), your argument that I don't benefit would be wrong. That 2 trillion dollars? Part of it is the position that I fill. So yeah, keep it up.

But the larger issue is that you just assume that US corporations don't bring money into the US economy. Is the economy important to you?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, you did. Ergo, answer your own question. As an aside, the Labor economy is important to me, the paper shuffling economy can kiss my ass.
 
Verax said:
This is basically just saying you want Obama to be more aggressive, what would you have him do?
Click to expand...



First, as the first act of his first term, I would have had him declare that within 10 years the USA would energy independent and that all forms of energy within our borders would be exploited to achieve this.

Second, I would have had him convene a bi-partisan working group of both parties to determine the best and most bloodless method to extricate us from the two wars in process at the time.

Third, I would have had him suspend any monies that were being wasted on the farce of Global Warming.

Fourth, I would have had him appoint a working group of legislators from both parties to plan a method to remove power from washington and deposit it with the states.

Fifth, I would have had him announce and execute a real reform to the tax code to simplify it and make it more friendly to those corporations driven off shore to other countries.

Finally, I would have had him invite world leaders from around the world to meet in an effort to open borders to free trade encourage the exchange of ideas and guarantee the individual rights of all to express ideas in a free and open market place of idea on the internet.

Sadly, he has done exactly the opposite of all of these things and we see the results.

If he had done all of these things, the world would not be destabilized and we would not be in the situation we find ourselves thanks to his dithering and bumbling.
 
code1211 said:
First, as the first act of his first term, I would have had him declare that within 10 years the USA would energy independent and that all forms of energy within our borders would be exploited to achieve this.

Second, I would have had him convene a bi-partisan working group of both parties to determine the best and most bloodless method to extricate us from the two wars in process at the time.

Third, I would have had him suspend any monies that were being wasted on the farce of Global Warming.

Fourth, I would have had him appoint a working group of legislators from both parties to plan a method to remove power from washington and deposit it with the states.

Fifth, I would have had him announce and execute a real reform to the tax code to simplify it and make it more friendly to those corporations driven off shore to other countries.

Finally, I would have had him invite world leaders from around the world to meet in an effort to open borders to free trade encourage the exchange of ideas and guarantee the individual rights of all to express ideas in a free and open market place of idea on the internet.

Sadly, he has done exactly the opposite of all of these things and we see the results.

If he had done all of these things, the world would not be destabilized and we would not be in the situation we find ourselves thanks to his dithering and bumbling.
Click to expand...

Agree, except Simpson-Bowles was a good economic idea which was shoved in a drawer and ignored. DC likes to spend money!
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Meh. Average?
Click to expand...



Average? I suppose that in the spectrum of presidential effectiveness, it's hard to arrive at a rating for him. How would you rate the effectiveness of Jimmy Carter?
 
code1211 said:
Average? I suppose that in the spectrum of presidential effectiveness, it's hard to arrive at a rating for him. How would you rate the effectiveness of Jimmy Carter?
Click to expand...

Very below average. Did you think I was a liberal or something?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Very below average. Did you think I was a liberal or something?
Click to expand...


Just trying to get a feel for what you are talking about.

Most of the measurables for Carter were better than they are for Obama.

What is another president that you would rate as average?
 
code1211 said:
Just trying to get a feel for what you are talking about.

Most of the measurables for Carter were better than they are for Obama.

What is another president that you would rate as average?
Click to expand...

Bush 43. Kennedy.
 
code1211 said:
First, as the first act of his first term, I would have had him declare that within 10 years the USA would energy independent and that all forms of energy within our borders would be exploited to achieve this.

Second, I would have had him convene a bi-partisan working group of both parties to determine the best and most bloodless method to extricate us from the two wars in process at the time.

Third, I would have had him suspend any monies that were being wasted on the farce of Global Warming.

Fourth, I would have had him appoint a working group of legislators from both parties to plan a method to remove power from washington and deposit it with the states.

Fifth, I would have had him announce and execute a real reform to the tax code to simplify it and make it more friendly to those corporations driven off shore to other countries.

Finally, I would have had him invite world leaders from around the world to meet in an effort to open borders to free trade encourage the exchange of ideas and guarantee the individual rights of all to express ideas in a free and open market place of idea on the internet.

Sadly, he has done exactly the opposite of all of these things and we see the results.

If he had done all of these things, the world would not be destabilized and we would not be in the situation we find ourselves thanks to his dithering and bumbling.
Click to expand...

1. I don't think its possible to be energy independent. We are about to be the largest producer of oil, which is still importing the vast bulk of crude we need for production. I haven't looked at this in years so it may have changed with fracking but...

2. I think we're trying to do this...

---------------------------------------------

None of these others have anything to do with foreign policy???

3. You just want to ignore the problem, great for today, terrible for tomorrow.

4. Supreme state power means backwards red states can de-implement all the social progress we've made in the last century, no thanks.

5. Would be nice to nuke the tax code and have something very simple replace it. However the tax industry would be destroyed and they have lobbied hard to stop reform, really crappy situation.
 
Verax said:
1. I don't think its possible to be energy independent. We are about to be the largest producer of oil, which is still importing the vast bulk of crude we need for production. I haven't looked at this in years so it may have changed with fracking but...

2. I think we're trying to do this...

---------------------------------------------

None of these others have anything to do with foreign policy???

3. You just want to ignore the problem, great for today, terrible for tomorrow.

4. Supreme state power means backwards red states can de-implement all the social progress we've made in the last century, no thanks.

5. Would be nice to nuke the tax code and have something very simple replace it. However the tax industry would be destroyed and they have lobbied hard to stop reform, really crappy situation.
Click to expand...



The question was what would I have had him do and those are the things.

The oil production from federal land is way down as is the issuance of permits to drill on Federal lands. In this as in all things related to fossil fuel, Obama has bowed to his handlers and is making a gesture that has no effect in the real world. Obama and his henchmen are trying to outlaw coal altogether. His entire approach to energy can be characterized as "all of the above and none of the below". This is to say, everything that won't work and nothing that will work. Pretty much like the rest of his policies. If we had done this, we would have avoided the expenditures for the Failed Stimuls, invigorated the economy, avoided the bankrupting of the country and avoided the current mess we are in done to his failures.

Obama has exerted every effort to avoid being bi-partisan in any and every pursuit he undertakes. There are two groups that he sees as hostile on the planet: The Republicans are viewed as a real enemy and our traditional allies are viewed with contempt.

We are spending 22+ billion dollars annually to fight global warming which is a farce. The warming is natural and the cause of CO2 is an unprovable and in any event a non-issue. We are cooler than we were 8000 years ago and cooler than the peak of any of the interglacials before this one. The world is about 18 degrees cooer than it was 50 million years ago and the whole debate is based on junk science, greed and political hysteria. The current warming that we enjoy is part of a tend that predates the stated cause by about 200 years. The globe has warmed by about 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. It has cooled by about 0.7 degrees over the last 8000 years. There is no crisis.

Removing power from Washington means de-funding the Federal Government's extraneous and mischievous regulating departments. As long as there is a pool of money that big in DC, there will be a the kind of corruption that produces a doubling of spending in about 10 years. Has your household budget doubled in 10 years? Have the revenues of the average company doubled in 10 years? Not likely. Why is this inefficient and corrupt cess pool of vice and greed allowed to grow as it does? The Federal Court System can continue to thrive and the Loon Judges in the Federal Circuits can continue to have their decisions overturned. These, however, have not served to stop the greatest curtailment of personal liberty for our citizenry since the interment camps of WW2.

I agree about that. The tax I pay should be calculated on the back of a 3x5 post card. The current system is arrived at by adding another loophole about every 22.5 hours since the tax system was simplified under Reagan.
 
Last edited:
Old is an apologist for US foreign policy, no matter what it is, there really is little value in speaking to him.
 
code1211 said:
What's shocking is that the real moral of this story is completely missed. In 1994, the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the word of the USA and Britain that we would defend it's territorial rights.

Now, abandoned by the feckless Obama, the Nuke-less Ukraine is low hanging fruit for the Russians to pluck.

Is there a lesson in this? Yes there is. If you have nukes, you have territorial integrity. If you don't, you have a welcome mat on your border.

What do you think this will guide Iran to do?

When the Russians conducted the excursion into Georgia, the rest of the former Soviet Block Countries must have started calculating the exchange rate for their currency into Rubles.
Click to expand...

You can tell people that get their news from Rush, Fox or other right wing porn sites; they are the ones that can't articulate the issue in their own words. Somehow I seriously doubt "freckless" is in your daily vernacular.
 
poliphil said:
Don't know who this guy is, but he apparently thinks this conflict is going to lead to ww3 since Russia is positioning itself to control Ukraine before US exerts its influence over it. You guys think it's possible?

The Road to World War III Runs through Ukraine
Click to expand...
| Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
Click to expand...




A lot of things are possible, but that doesn't mean that they are going to happen.

WWIII isn't going to start in the Ukraine.

Don't take my word for this, just wait and see.
 
upsideguy said:
You can tell people that get their news from Rush, Fox or other right wing porn sites; they are the ones that can't articulate the issue in their own words. Somehow I seriously doubt "freckless" is in your daily vernacular.
Click to expand...



Three college degrees here and one is in Literature. The word is not "freckless". It's feckless.

As it happens, I'm old and perhaps my vocabulary is a tad archaic for you.

Be that as it may, the policy of Obama in foreign affairs is perfectly described by the word feckless. I don't know if the r you include is an enhancement or not. this may be a word I'm not young enough to know.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feckless

<snip>
feck·less adjective \ˈfek-ləs\
: having or resulting from a weak character or nature

Full Definition of FECKLESS

1
: weak, ineffective
2
: worthless, irresponsible
— feck·less·ly adverb
— feck·less·ness noun
<snip>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom