US Features
Mar 4, 2008, 15:50 GMT
ANALYSIS: Obama-Clinton battle at historic social crossroads
And Also
Similar articles
- ANALYSIS: On Obama's election anniversary, Republicans claim victory
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (Roundup)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (3rd Lead)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (2nd Lead)
- Republicans take Virginia in first election test for Obama (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood suspect charged with attempted murder
- 2. White House gate crashers in less festive mood in first interview
- 3. Suspect in US police killing shot dead (1st Lead)
- 4. Suspect in US police killing shot dead
- 5. In Pictures: 'World War II Fighter Recovered'
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
'Your total ignorance of the US is well represented in the nonsense you write.'
He really has no idea a all of what he is talking about, yet that jasn't slowed him down at all. It is amazing.
Tonny really believes what he says, because it's faith. I understand faith, so I expect these answers.
When you are spreading a belief, you concoct stories about creation, or if it is a political religion, you concoct stories about everything from neocons to global warming. There is no fact, because faith requires none.
Liberalism is a faith for the faithless. It provides that which others already have, but using contemporary politics as it's belief base. Just watch the libnazis and then watch the evangelists or the catholic clergy and see the similarities so thick you can spread them with a knife.
It's faith, not fact. If stupidity is involved it's Tonny not recognizing it for what it is.
SP4 is a reporter.
Is it so difficult to understand what is written.For clarity this :.I never said the military industrial complex started with Bush .The first to see the alarming signs of it was Eisenhower .It should be clear that corporate business runs the country whoever is in charge,but there are a few differences.Reagan an Bush are both the biggest military spenders in history .Mc Cain ,the next presidential candidate is just another proxy from the armament dealers.One example,found in the usual neocon press and posted as a billboard sign to show his patriotism was the fact that he was the only one to call for an investigating the contracts handed out to Northrop-EADS in theit struggle for the airtanker contracts against Boeing .In fact he was the only one who recieved information from Boeing and allowed himself to be used by them ?A bas omen,especially in combination with his statement that the troops are to remain in Vietnam ...ooops I meant Iraq for hundred years if necessary .If necessary ?What does that mean ?Did anybody even care to ask the Iraqi people about that ?I guess not they are negligible quantity in his equation .And so he creates the scenario for continuation of excessive military spending by pursuing yet another war that can not be won.
That is the tenure of my arguments .Very different from the stuff you ,SP4 ;lie in my mouth .Probably because it is easier to combat somebody if you are allowed to make up his own mind .What a clown you are....
As for the legal ties between Haliburton and Cheney,read again what I said about loyalty .Don't always twist my words,ok ?
The libanzi needs these myths to perpetuate their beliefs. Eisenhower is a good example: Someone thinks the military-industrial establishment started after WWII when it was the liberal intelligista that started it with the beginning of WWII under Roosevelt. In fact, it was Eisenhower who warned us about it.
It's undeniable that the Manhatten ptoject was the forerunner of all of this. The liberal elite, knowng full well the outcome, went headlong into making weapons of mass destruction, most of the progenators being card carrying communists.
After the war, everyone got into the act. By 1950, these same folks were now trying to convince everyone they were peace activists, when they were just communists. The right, correctly, pointed this out and the left invented McCarthyism. Old Joe was an asshole, to be sure, but that did not make him wrong.
This branding of the right as some kind of managers of the MIC was started to deflect the real progenators. Kennedy had his missile gap (it never existed) and Johnson his Vietnam war. Carter pushed the Trident System and so goes the story.
But liberals go on and on, trying to convince us that, somehow, conservatives make war all by themselves.
Today it's Iraq. They greenlight the whole mess and then try to blame the other side of the aisle. The same for Nafta, they greenlight it and then try to tell everyone it was the republicans. Pillory Cheney, Bush and anyone else with anything to make it stick. Try every empty political trick to make someone look bad. We expect it now.
And it works, because some of you will believe it. There will be a day when you want this constituants support and they will treat you as you have treated them.
Quoting the article:'A middle-age man, also African-American, walked past carrying a computer case over his shoulder, and yelled: 'Obama for Change! Hillary is just Bill's ticket back to the White House.''
Right on target. The Clintons are running for an unconstitutional third term.
...list any crime Cheney has been charged with....
Hillary repeatedly claims to have acted as President while debating with Senator Obama. Perhaps she has in her own mind, but does my charge hold up to serious scrutiny? Has she already acted as President during the two terms of her husband, Bill Clinton or are her claims false? Clearly, she's damned either way and she is either lying or she his running for an unconstitutional third term.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/march2008/hillary-clinton-nation al-security-vet.htm
The London Daily Telegraph challenges The Clintons' veracity, rather like shooting trapped in a rain barrel, while refuting my complaint.
You read it. You decide.
otherwise, she was no more than a hostess, not exactly preisdential credentials. Nonetheless, she still has more exec experience than Barak.
Hillary was the do-it for Bill all those years. She was the breadwinner, she pushed the staffs around, she kept the law off him, hid and destroyed documents, and did all the dirty stuff. She would be a better president than him.
RE:'Is it so difficult to understand what is written.For clarity this :.I never said the military industrial complex started with Bush .The first to see the alarming signs of it was Eisenhower .'
Yes, Tonny, we all know that you don't like us because we insist on keeping and bearing arms. Too bad for you.
RE:'It should be clear that corporate business runs the country whoever is in charge,but there are a few differences.'
If you would deign to look at our budget, you would immediately realize that socialist run this country, not corporations.
RE:Reagan an Bush are both the biggest military spenders in history .'
Reagan, yes. Bush, not hardly. Military spending is still dangerously low.
RE:'Mc Cain ,the next presidential candidate is just another proxy from the armament dealers.One example,found in the usual neocon press and posted as a billboard sign to show his patriotism was the fact that he was the only one to call for an investigating the contracts handed out to Northrop-EADS in theit struggle for the air tanker contracts against Boeing .In fact he was the only one who recieved information from Boeing and allowed himself to be used by them ?'
I don't know where you get this bullshit, Tonny, but it is as false as it comes:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/08/ap/politics/main3919392.shtml
Snippet:''Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.
There are other targets for their ire _ the Air Force, the defense secretary and even the entire Bush administration.
But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.''
If you would take the trouble to actually learns something about the United States, Tonny, you might realize that your leftist buddies are completely detached from reality. Alas, you seem to be a floating abstraction in and of yourself so perhaps that would not work either. No matter. I have never been able to ride by a windmill without having a go at it. Let's look at some history here.
The United States Air Force developed a severe dislike for Boeing during the development and deployment of the B-29 bomber, way back in WWII. Since that time, their relationship with Boeing has NOT improved. USAF influence was the MAJOR reason we got a Rockwell space shuttle instead of a Boeing space shuttle, okay? There is no love lost between Boeing and the USAF, even though our best and longest-lived bombers came from, guess who, Boeing.
After the B-52 contract ended, Boeing has gotten very little in the way of business from the USAF. Nearly all of their profits have come from the design and construction of civilian aircraft. The only large airframes the USAF has been buying from Boeing are civilian aircraft converted into tankers. The USAF even went out of its way to avoid buying from Boeing and bought Douglas DC-10 airframes for its larger tankers, even though the DC-10 is a perfectly awful tanker, especially when refueling bombers.
Boeing has not been given a large contract by the USAF since the deal they made to use Boeing 707's as the KC-135 back in 1957. The lease of Boeing 767's as tankers instead of outright purchase was rooted in the silly parsimony of Sec. Def. Rumsfeld. He was an exceedingly bad leader. Come to that so is the Busbaby.
Now the USAF has seen fit to rescue EADS from its A-380 folly. Ask me if I am pleased or impressed. No, I am neither pleased nor am I impressed. Boeing builds the best large airframes in the world. No other aircraft maker in the world, including US airframe makers, can lay a glove on them in this field. The Bushbaby's minions and the USAF are playing the role of perfect fools on this one.
RE:'A bas omen,especially in combination with his statement that the troops are to remain in Vietnam ...ooops I meant Iraq for hundred years if necessary .If necessary ?What does that mean ?'
It means, Tonny, that we will stay there and maintain order in Iraq just as we have in the Republic of Korea. And, yes, Tonny, it means that the United States will continue to build up its military to the size it needs to be. Go ahead, feel free to be upset. The fact that it upsets you confirms that this is the best thing we could do. You hate us. We know that. You will not persuade us to disarm. Go fly a kite.
RE:'Did anybody even care to ask the Iraqi people about that ?'
You do not ask a mentally incompetent patient to make important decisions. You wait until they have regained their faculties.
RE:'I guess not they are negligible quantity in his equation .'
WRONG! They are the true matter of importance.
RE:'And so he creates the scenario for continuation of excessive military spending by pursuing yet another war that can not be won.'
Now you are lying. The 'war' can be won and we are winning it. I know you don't like that, but again, too bad for you.
RE:'That is the tenure of my arguments .'
Only professors get tenure, Tonny.
RE:'Don't always twist my words,ok ?'
You are the true grand master of Twist, Tonny. I think everyone habituating these forums will readily cede that crown to you without a qualm.
My relative is in grad school. One of the other students has a child entering high school. He's bright, but the school system, a model of what liberal politics has built in city schools, sucks. The city, a rampant libnazi stronghold, has charter schools, but since he's white, he's virtually last to be accepted.
My relative tells this guy, a model of liberal loyalty, 'gee, I guess that makes the political right's voucher system look pretty good about now, huh?'
He just looks blindly at my relative and says 'oh, thats not it!'. Here is a guy victimized by fed ed, runaway unionized education, liberal racism, all facilitated by the liberal intelligista of this nation for 45 years and he is unwilling to concede they f--ked him.
If a libnazi will do this to themselves, why would we get logic on any other subject form the likes of these robots? Tonny epitomizes these folks. His slavish devotion to his beliefs ranks as religion, not science or politics.
..the whole end game here is not the environment or healthcare it's power. By ceding all this to regulators, you give up freedoms. The president of the Czec republic said that yesterday in a WSJ op ed piece. He knows once he's on board with the EU, it's all in their hands.
So do we.
I must have hit a nerve when I said the corporate tycoons are running the show more than ever .The reactions I've got from the neocon claque are indicative enough of that.Trying to deny it by saying Boeing is on bad terms with the Pentagon because of the B-29 since WW2 is of course completely ridiculous .Why not say that those guys are toddlers with nothing but childish behavior.Realy you neocons must learn some logics and sense of reality if you want to convince .But I must say I'm very amused with SP4 consistent accusations of faith as a motivation for my postings .
I love it when Noharness claims the USA is not spending enough on armament .Half the world budget on weapons is spent by the USA ?Sincerely,are you neocons at war with the other halve of the world ?There used to be times when the military industrial complex had to dish out lies like the military supremacy of the USSR to justify spending your national resources on armament.What will it be now ;Terrorism ?The need to defend your european partners ?
..heard that before.
Neocons (born after 1962???)
Tychoons (what is this, the 1800s?)
Too much spent on defense (until Pearl Harbor, Korea or Iraq rolls up)
YEP, EVERYONE HATES WEAPONS BUYS UNTIL THE FIRST ONE SLIDES OFF THE RACKS.
Be sure to remember Kennedy's missile gap, Carters Trident system, or Johnson's Vietnam war, and Billy Clinton capping Serbs in Bosnia.
Neocons....war??? I guess you've never heard of Harry Truman...
RE:'I must have hit a nerve when I said the corporate tycoons are running the show more than ever .The reactions I've got from the neocon claque are indicative enough of that.'
Which of us are you calling neo-cons, Tonny? Once again you demonstrate your ignorance for everyone to see.
RE:'Trying to deny it by saying Boeing is on bad terms with the Pentagon because of the B-29 since WW2 is of course completely ridiculous .'
The truth is very often ridiculous, Tonny. Boeing got the B-47 contract largely because of one relatively junior procurement officer standing his ground over the performance of the Boeing design. Air crews HATED the B-47. It was a dangerous airplane to fly, but Boeing again came up with the best design for the B-52 in 1955. Since that time, Boeing has not been awarded one of the more serious bomber contracts. They lost on the Shuttle program, they lost the B-1 program and they lost the B-2 program. USAF initially purchased a slightly down-sized version of the Boeing 707 as the KC-135 tanker in 1957, but Boeing was at that time building better large jet powered airframes than anybody else at the time. They are still building superior large jets.
USAF chose the DC-10 over Boeing's redoubtable 747 in 1975, even though the DC-10 was demonstrably a horrible airplane for refueling operations. The DC-10's third engine was especially hard on bombers trying to refuel from it.
RE:'Why not say that those guys are toddlers with nothing but childish behavior.'
They very often are.
RE:'I love it when Noharness claims the USA is not spending enough on armament .'
You haven't been paying attention to what has been happening to our soldiers here of late, have you? Oh, but wait, they aren't your troops so you don't really care. Why should you?
RE:'Half the world budget on weapons is spent by the USA ?Sincerely,are you neocons at war with the other halve of the world ?'
The neo-cons are at war with everybody as far as I can tell. The rest of us understand that we do not actually have allies we can count on and understand that we must make up for that lack. Were it up to me, the very first act of the next President of the United States would be the dissolution of NATO. Europe is, as far as I am concerned, indefensible and already lost and has not been of any real use to us for decades.
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story