How in the world, can you say “I want peace” when you sit there and say you want to spend 2 Trillion dollars more for the military?? That does not make ANY sense whatsoever. Seriously, how many lies can Romney tell?
Yeah I caught that too…I think there are pretty stark contrasts to their foreign policies but I think Romney did a good job tonight as coming across much more moderate than he actually is. I guess I just don’t understand how more military spending means peace. If we spend more money on the military, we have to use it. If we don’t use it then its just wasted spending essentially. 70% of his foreign policy advisors are directly from the Bush administration. I’m pretty sure we all know exactly where that got us. I know it doesn’t mean the same thing will happen but history does have a way of repeating itself. Either way I do think Obama won tonight, but I dont know if that means he will win the election. I think debates are essentially worthless.
Your History teacher never taught you the “Theory of Deterrence or the Truman Doctrine”? It was started by Truman and the Democrats. 
^^In 200000 years, mankind has not resolved its aggressive instincts. We’ve evolved from simple tribes to complex societies, but basic human behaviors have not changed. Only our methods of dealing with one another have modified those behaviors but only to the point that discourages some people from being aggressive.
That’s why peace is mostly determined by a society’s ability to withstand attack, whether by building a defensive posture by themselves or by entering into treaties with other societies to deter aggression. The cold war and the build up of nuclear “deterrent weapons” screwed up our concept of military spending to the outlandishly moronic degree. That’s what Kubrick based Dr. Stangelove on. But it set in motion this business of the “military-industrial complex” which became an employment source for thousands of businesses large and small and for millions of people. Once system like this come into existence, it’s very hard to do away with them. The social welfare system of the sixties works the same way.
It actually wasn’t until Ronald Reagan began to cut department of defense spending and stop the cold war nonsense with Russia that this country began to see some reversal of the expenditures for this system.
But it’s our, yours and mine, dependence on oil, on getting in our cars to drive down to the 7-11 for a pack of smokes whenever we felt the urge, or to drive 400 hundred miles to some abandoned air force base in Maine to listen to some wired music that changed the focus of our need for defense from Russian nukes to protecting ours (and the world’s) oil fields.
In order to keep our current lifestyles intact, we’ve extended the castle walls to include those resources. The more dependent we become on these resources, the larger our budget for castle walls becomes. Until we all take that responsibility to eliminate needless use of the energy in our own lives, then huge defense budgets will be required to maintain that wasteful lifestyle. We can’t have it both ways.
And now China with its billions of consumers has become a serious competitor for these energy sources as well. Their “defensive” budgets to expand the scope of their castle walls are growing exponentially. We cannot compete with their numbers and are pretty much doomed unless we seriously face changes in the way we look at what we consume.
These are very complex questions concerning military spending, and none of the candidates are really taking it to the public in quite the way it should be addressed. It’s all soundbites and slick phrases to move those undecideds left or right of center. Shame it is.
^Want to come in and teach a lesson when I cover the Cold War? 
Honestly I don’t think I was?? I understand the concept of deterrence but its just that it’s a theory. I’m sure that we have used it to a success, but in my personal opinion I’m not sure I trust a candidate who has so many of the same foreign policy advisers as President Bush not to start another war on a whim. Obviously I don’t know, maybe he really does want peace 
, but if I had to put money on what would happen to Iran and the rest of the middle east if Romney was President I wouldn’t put money on him being peaceful. Thanks for pointing this out and it’s a very interesting topic that is intertwined with our economy at the current moment. I wonder what our country would look like if we put 2 trillion dollars into our own society, like schools, housing, small business and so on…
Fone, I agree with you that they aren’t talking about it. They dumb down 90% of what they say because the majority of people who vote don’t really pay attention to politics or the world more than a couple months every 4 years. I know that history says there will always be war, but I don’t agree. The way our technology has advanced, another huge war, which could possibly happen depending on how other countries end up figuring out their shit in the ME, could destroy the planet and a lot of people/life on it. I really don’t think that anyone really wants that, maybe extremists but they are very narrow minded. They have to be to do the bull shit they do and expect the world to change for the better. The nuke thing doesn’t really scare me at all. Like I said before, Iran doesn’t want to nuke Israel, they can posture all they want and sound like tough guys, but come on, that would end the existence of Iran and they know it.
Eventually we have to move towards accepting other cultures and governments and getting along with them even if they aren’t democratic. The idea of making everyone democratic so that we will get along peacefully is the reason we don’t get along peacefully with a lot of nations. Why should they act like us? Why should they have to use the American model of government and society? I believe that IF we really want peace, and really want understanding between people and nations, we have to let people figure it out for themselves and do what is best for their people. Afghan’s are not Americans, neither are Israeli’s or Iranians. If we really want to help nations who are being run over by extreme groups of people we need to help them raise their own defenses and stop sending our soldiers there in harms way. I know that a lot of nations need our help, and don’t have the resources to defend themselves, and that the humanitarian thing to do is help in stopping these groups from destroying the infrastructure of the countries, but I feel like we are spreading ourselves thin.
Sorry for rambling, there are a lot of issues in the world that are really never discussed by the government or candidates that really should be. I also agree with your idea of changing the way we consume. If we really wanted to get away from oil, spend the 2 trillion dollars to buy everyone an electric car 
That would get us away from oil in a big way, obviously not entirely but it would help.
Don’t be sorry for anything, (is it Trevor? I can’t keep a handle on anyone’s real name around here sometimes). I believe it’s really healthy for everyone of us to think about these things, whether we agree on who should be handling the government or not. As long as we’re not attacking each other, and I dont’ think we do, then this is a perfect environment to expand our knowledge and look at the way other people see things.
I agree, a solar powered electric car is something we should be looking at, and I believe there are inventors and entrepeneurs working these things as we exchange ideas here. But electric cars that plug into outlets connected in a network to an oil or coal based generator is pointless. The reliance is still there.
Believe it or not, the operating philosophy of our defense department is the following (in broad terms):
- Do the things necessary to discourage someone from hitting you with a stick.
- If you do get hit with a stick anyway, take the stick out of your attacker’s hands.
- If you can’t, or your attacker keeps coming at you after you take the stick away, disable him in some way to prevent the attack.
- If he keeps attacking you from a disabled position, kill only the attacker.
- If attacks keep coming, do whatever is necessary to stop the attack without risk to your own soldiers.
- If that’s not possible, do whatever is necessary to stop the attack.
Dollars are actually spent in degrees for systems and weaponry that will perform the ‘defensive’ actions first. Over the past ten to fifteen years, more defense dollars (except for direct battlefield support during times of conflict) have been spent on intelligence gathering and unmanned systems. The drive is to minimize risk to all human beings first, once again to first deter attacks, and then to eliminate them where you can’t.
There are intelligent people, who have spent their lives trying to get a handle on the ravages of war attempting to solve the problems that all of us see with protecting ourselves. Unfortunately, as the world’s population continues to grow at unbelievable rates, the striving for resources will only become more serious. I don’t believe we can maintain our current lifestyles in this country and not find ourselves in conflicts all around the world as we strive for those dwindling resources.
Nature normally takes care of overcrowded ponds in some way to resume the balance so that life can continue to survive. But humans do what we can to prolong and maintain life, doing at times, things that are so contrary to the natural order of the world. Hard as it is to accept, maybe a world war, massive famine, destructive asteroids, or a good plague is the only way that the earth will get back to some semblance of balance.
Wow, now there’s a happy thought for the day.
^ Yeah it’s a great thought. My name is Ryan and no worries I’m very horrible with names. I guess it just seems that war stands out so much that the earlier attempts get lost in translation. It’s nice to have a place to actually have intelligent discussions and learn more about differing views. Good info on the electric cars btw, solar it is 
Or hydrogen possibly 
Limited resources are a reason I don’t think drilling more in the country is the best idea either. Not sure it would even lower the price of oil, so don’t like the idea.
one war away from…
Course none of these topics are new, hydrogen cell cars were tried and are probably our best bet but they failed economically, socially, technically. Solar energy is not cost effective and doesn’t generate enough electricity, same with wind mills… really, does anyone expect the world is going to run on windmills and corn? Nothing is more effective than fossil fuels and nuclear. The entire world infrastructure, economy, our lives… our food, shelter… its all run on the combustion engine. We can go back to the stone age I guess. Or horses and bayonets…
I think anyone can see that a world built on finite resources is unsustainable… by definition. To keep the faith I think that over time as oil dwindles, as we pass global peak oil, the human race will adapt to a new way of living. Who knows, maybe there will be a radical cleansing of sorts, billions of human wiped out one way or another, something horrifying like that… or there will be a slow decline in dependence on oil… just over 10 years ago, in the late 90’s, gas was .99/gallon! As oil supplies shrink the price will become so extravagant that new technologies will become cost effective, then we will see the change and not before. Some may want to push us to that end now (see: global warming alarmists… not one mention in the debates!) but given enough time a natural progression seems likely…
I thought Romney did fine last night. Obama continued with a more aggressive tact, which played clunky but he wasn’t leaving room for Romney to slam dunk him again. Romney knew he wasn’t going to beat the Commander in Chief at his own game so he played it safe… didn’t even bring up Benghazi. Instead he effectively brought the economy into play. Its a good and effective argument, our national security is based on a strong economy. I think everyone agree with that. Their differences in policy were more along the lines of subtle than stark but I agree with the general sentiment that what Romney did was show that he could be Commander in Chief, that he is Presidential and that he is a real contender to win this election. Tell me, prior to the debates did anyone really think this way? I didn’t. Whoever said the debates are meaningless is wrong.
For extra credit: debate fact check
Finally got to watch a debate!
My man Barack pwned that shit. Total domination!
Bayonets and horses!!! Fucking classic!
I’m not so good at this piss contest stuff. I used pwned correctly right?
lol, I think so. I’m an old dude now who only makes himself sound hopelessly unhip by trying to use ‘young people speak’ … once in a while I use something kinda slang around here and half expect to be called out for being generationally offsides.
But yeah Barack was sharp, sincere, funny, … I thought Mitt Romney did well though, still. I mean I didn’t buy very much of what he said honestly, but I thought from a performance standpoint that he was strong. Obama was way stronger though, in this last one.
Yep, they are talking about their job the past 4 years and the candidates are talking about things they have no clue on This applies to Romney, Obama '08 and back. P
Sorry dooj, but the statement was a gaff even though the point was partially right in the context of the debate. In defense of both men, they cannot possibly have the handle on the details of what a strong Navy means and has meant over time. The article below and statements by Congressman West provide more insight than either men had on the subject last night. But I’m in the process to fact check West to see if he wasn’t talking through his hat as well.
This again demonstrates how these campaigns and debates reduce information into catchy phrases, comebacks, mudslings and soundbites to win over the people who don’t have time or won’t check the validity of what is being thrown out there to please the TV camera.
I think the term ‘total domination’ isn’t exactly what happened in any of the debates.
witty zingers are great in the bar room… however Romney’s larger point of a strong military and stable economy cannot be understated, no matter how witty O can be. But it did produce this, which admittedly is gold 
:
I appreciate everyone’s opinions and, trust me, I get the theater of political debates vs. the seriousness of real policy. It’s the reason I skipped the first two. But, for what it was-- it was highly entertaining, imo-- great to watch on the plane and definitely had me laughing with the president and at mister romney. Dude was getting schooled left and right.
Again, I can see how a lot of you are sick of the bs. If I were being bombarded with tv ads and talking heads (I have not seen ONE campaign ad since the beginning of this thing), I’d probably be sick of it, too.
But, to me, the choice is a clear as day. We are ALL full of bullshit. We ALL say what we need to say in order to get where we want to get. But this former liberal governor of mass, former conservative primary candidate and currently moderate and loveable shaken-up etch-a-sketch of a man’s bullshit meter is absolutely off the chart. The president may not be perfect, but I trust that he has the back of the American people far more than Mitt Romney does.
And folks, Fone said it. No matter who we elect, they are essentially a puppet to those who funded them. You’ve got one guy who’s top 5 donors have put in about 10 million. And then you’ve got the other guy who’s number one donor has put in 3 times that. The former got the 10 mil from a movie mogul, a tech mogul, a news mogul a philanthropist and a lawyer, but the latter absolutely trumps that number with donations given by a Las Vegas casino owner that is under investigation by the current justice dept. for shady dealings in Macau. (theblaze.com/stories/meet-th … campaigns/)
The majority of Romney’s money comes from maybe 5 shady characters. The majority of Obama’s money comes from small donations by average Americans (star-telegram.com/2012/10/20 … obama.html).
Who would you rather have your president owe?
youtube.com/user/oratvnetwor … sults_main
The debate tonight in 15 mins with the minority parties and Larry King…Figure I will check it out for a bit seeing as though Jill Stein is who I agree with more than Obama and Romney combined
^Jill Stein just told me to go out and get arrested.
^ LOL yeah me too. Is it just me or is this just a bitch about the government thing? This is not a debate at all right now 