GOP on target to "get" obama.....

[Goobieman]

No single economy can get to mars, not even 50 years from now.

Hooey. All we have to do is shift 1/3 of our yearly entitlement spending to the effort and we're there in 10. Or less.

 

[Goobieman]

i have no problem with that.

When discussing national defense....Why would you voluntarily give up an advantage and get nothing in return for it?

 

[OscarB63]

When discussing national defense....Why would you voluntarily give up an advantage and get nothing in return for it?

1. you are the ultimate pacifist

2. you are ultimately stupid

 

[Goobieman]

the latest fielded version of the PATRIOT missile defense system is "hit-to-kill" basically shooting a bullet with a bullet. multiple field tests and combat engagements during OIF have proven this technology is effective.

I was referring to the SM-3 and GBI systems we have for strategic missile defense - but yes.
Hitting a missile with another missile has been posisble for decades.

 

[Goobieman]

1. you are the ultimate pacifist

2. you are ultimately stupid

3. Both
(10 char)

 

[OscarB63]

3. Both
(10 char)

:lamo one could argue that in order to be #1 you must first be #2.

 

[liblady]

Don't really care. Your personal preference doesn't make it actually good for the country.

neither does yours, although you certainly seem to think it does.

 

[liblady]

When discussing national defense....Why would you voluntarily give up an advantage and get nothing in return for it?

it's a redundant advantage.

 

[liblady]

rewind about 2 years and replace GOP with democrats and Obama with Bush and you have the same old same old. funny how the ones who were "out to get Bush" are now the main ones crying about how the GOP is "out to get Obama". :shrug:

except the gop has clearly stated their goal, and this is the beginning.

 

[Harshaw]

neither does yours, although you certainly seem to think it does.

I never stated a personal preference.

 

[Harshaw]

Whats that 10-1 ratio of Russian advantage again?

WHy dont we start you easy...

Russia arguably hasn't had a nuclear advantage since the 60's. Where did you find your schlock your attempting to pass off as knowledge.

You again need to figure out what the terms "strategic" and "tactical" mean. Get back to me when you do.

This article contains as well the results of a simulation showing American nuclear primacy. To such a degree that cutting half our nukes means nothing.

How do we maintain "primacy" if we just agreed to cut to "parity"? Perhaps these are terms you also need to familiarize yourself with.

Really you have yet to actually engage in a discussion except outright denial. Im pretty sure I'm sitting on a campus right now and about to go to this class.

Well, you surely do need to study up. I rather enjoy "reasoning" which starts with "as we discussed in my class" . . .

 

[Harshaw]

it's a redundant advantage.

How can an "advantage" be "redundant"? And even if it is, wherein lies the problem? And wherein lies the wisdom in giving up the advantage for nothing?

 

[OscarB63]

except the gop has clearly stated their goal, and this is the beginning.

ah, so the GOP gets dinged for actually being honest. :shrug:

 

[Jetboogieman]

If the ****s down, all nukes are getting fired anyway. "OH NOES, WE CAN'T NUKE SEYCHELLES NOW!"

Get a ****ing grip.

Yeah, because the POTUS Always sticks to the rules in times of war :lol

Again my question is. If America can only blow up the world 3 times over, and Russia can blow it up 10 times over.

WHERE IS THE ****ING ADVANTAGE?

 

[Harshaw]

If the ****s down, all nukes are getting fired anyway. "OH NOES, WE CAN'T NUKE SEYCHELLES NOW!"

Get a ****ing grip.

Yeah, because the POTUS Always sticks to the rules in times of war :lol

Again my question is. If America can only blow up the world 3 times over, and Russia can blow it up 10 times over.

WHERE IS THE ****ING ADVANTAGE?

Sounds like you need to take a break.

 

[Harshaw]

ah, so the GOP gets dinged for actually being honest. :shrug:

For some, the GOP will get dinged no matter what. Witness this thread.

 

[liblady]

ah, so the GOP gets dinged for actually being honest. :shrug:

it's nice to know the goal of the gop has nothing to with bettering the country, and everything to do with getting obama.

 

[Harshaw]

it's nice to know the goal of the gop has nothing to with bettering the country, and everything to do with getting obama.

When the treaty diminishes the country with nothing in return, and you cheerlead for it because ZOMG! REPUBLICANS ARE AGAINST IT!!!! -- seems to me that rabid partisanship is driving YOU, the country be damned.

 

[OscarB63]

it's nice to know the goal of the gop has nothing to with bettering the country, and everything to do with getting obama.

and just what did the dem's goal of "getting Bush" have to do with bettering the country? hmmmmm? hypocrite much?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Sounds like you need to take a break.

So you can't actually address the post?

 

[allsogreat]

No, please tell us the terms of the treaty and how it disadvantages us...

I think he did and you weren't listening...

 

[Harshaw]

So you can't actually address the post?

It was an unhinged rant which was disconnected from any facts -- and arguments -- actually at play. Your numbers are wrong (and irrelevant) and address mythical points no one made.

 

[Goobieman]

it's a redundant advantage.

You didnt asnwer the question.

 

[Goobieman]

it's nice to know the goal of the gop has nothing to with bettering the country, and everything to do with getting obama.

What you fail to realize is that to oppose The Obama on this (and about a zillion other things) is to better the country.
This treaty makes us more vulnerable and less safe. To oppose it is the only reasoable course of action.