• 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!

How Many?

How many warheads?

  • 0. Arms are for hugging

    Votes: 13 34.2%

  • 300. We should be on par with most others

    Votes: 4 10.5%

  • 500. Not the most, but it sends a clear message.

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • 1500. Is plenty

    Votes: 5 13.2%

  • 5000 or more. We must maintain superiority at all levels.

    Votes: 15 39.5%
  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
GWB didnt golf, did he?
Dooble said:
The check on that power comes by way of votes. Do we voters want a strong commander in chief, or do we want an attention whore who loves excessive vacations and golf dates?
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
GWB didnt golf, did he?
Click to expand...
Not excessively. Compare the numbers with today's Golfer in Chief.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/06/17/obama-plays-golf-100th-time-presidency/


"George W. Bush gave up golfing in 2003, explaining his rationale five years later in an interview with POLITICO, saying it was wrong to play during wartime:

I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Obama clearly disagrees and has been unperturbed by criticism of his golf, maintaining a steady pace even during an election year."
 
Last edited:
I was talking about the double standard. how many time GWB went on vacation did not bother you guys, but...
Dooble said:
Not excessively. Compare the numbers with today's Golfer in Chief.

Obama Plays Golf for the 100th Time of his Presidency | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier


"George W. Bush gave up golfing in 2003, explaining his rationale five years later in an interview with POLITICO, saying it was wrong to play during wartime:

I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Obama clearly disagrees and has been unperturbed by criticism of his golf, maintaining a steady pace even during an election year."
Click to expand...
 
Like anyone here is a credible judge of these things.

We need to have as many as it takes to deter a nuclear attack; the number we need is a function of how many our adversaries have and how rational they are.
 
Th wisdom of the samurai...

Perfect the art of violence in hope of never having to using it.
 
Ideally zero. In fact any weapon you don't want an individual to have, you shouldn't allow the government to have. But that's more pipe dream than anything else.

I suppose enough for defense. The real problem with nukes is the global fallout they can produce. Conventional weapons are more useful than nukes and generally just as efficient for many jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom