Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
The F-22 is basically the greatest fighter jet we've ever created, at everything. Being able to deploy them for recon, bombing, fighting, intercepting, and being able to deploy it around the world is very important. I say build them. Defense is never something to skimp on.

The only purpose I see for the F-35 at all is to use on aircraft carriers because it's a bit smaller and lighter. Obviously that's just as important.

Having both these planes will get rid of our old fleets of F-117s, F-16s, F-18s, F-15s, F-14s (which are already gone), and any other planes like them that I may have forgotten. These two planes can do the job of all those. We need them both, and lots of them.

👍

At least someone gets it.
 
Joey D
Ever since the F-35 contract was awarded I see zero reason to keep building F-22. The F-35 is better is just about every way and will more or less outdate the F-22 once it enters service.
The F-35 is still a more advanced plane
Not really. They do not serve the same roles, so the comparison is apples to oranges. For this reason, to imply that the F-35 even has the capability to replace the F-22 is a fallacy. Furthermore, it is the F-22 that is the more advanced plane, not the F-35; so to imply that it should do so is an even larger one.

180 is enough F-22's.
I do, however, agree. We honestly don't need it at this immediate moment, especially not with the government already spending money like water. But in the next five to ten years we drastically need to start replacing the F-15C before they start dropping out of the skies. The F-35 wasn't designed to do so (and it shouldn't be used to do so regardless considering we will be exporting them). The F-22 was. The main problem I see with the F-22 is the cost, which I would hope would come down.

Speedy Samurai
The F-22 is an older machine that is not needed.
Age has nothing to do with anything. Its only 10 years older and its more advanced regardless.

Speedy Samurai
Building machines that you don't need just to keep jobs is not a wise decision.
So cut one of the dozens of frivolous government contracts that literally accomplish nothing other than keeping people employed. I'd rather the U.S. government build things to keep jobs that makes the military stronger than build things to keep jobs just for the sake of keeping jobs.

Speedy Samurai
So why hasn't the mighty F-22 been used in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Do you use a rifle to turn on your TV? No, you use your remote.
The F-22 entered production about 15 years too late to be of any use in Iraq, and never would have had any use in Afghanistan. Implying that the F-22 is somehow deficient simply because we don't need it in current conflicts shows a gross misunderstanding of the purpose behind its development.
 
Last edited:
Do you use a rifle to turn on your TV? No, you use your remote.
The F-22 entered production about 15 years too late to be of any use in Iraq, and never would have had any use in Afghanistan. Implying that the F-22 is somehow deficient simply because we don't need it in current conflicts shows a gross misunderstanding of the purpose behind its development.

Agreed. 👍

The role of air superiority (which leads to air supremacy) has not gone away. Air superiority makes ground operations possible.

Forget Iraq and Afghanistan. China, Russia, and India have no problem building air superiority fighters.

Gets what? Wasteful spending?

lol_cat-12926.jpg
 
Right because China Russia and India are our mortal enemies. Good news! I saved a bunch of money by switching to diplomacy.

Honestly it's not like the MIC couldn't ratchet up raptor production if it was really needed.
 
What happens when diplomacy fails?

Got spitballs?

"Wasteful spending"?

HA!!!

toon072209.gif


As for Obama's waste of TV bandwidth last night:

 
Last edited:
I do, however, agree. We honestly don't need it at this immediate moment, especially not with the government already spending money like water. But in the next five to ten years we drastically need to start replacing the F-15C before they start dropping out of the skies. The F-35 wasn't designed to do so (and it shouldn't be used to do so regardless considering we will be exporting them). The F-22 was. The main problem I see with the F-22 is the cost, which I would hope would come down.

That would be a "my bad", for some reason I completely forgot the F-22 was replacing the F-15. The F-35A is supposed to replace the F-16 Falcon right? I know the B is the STOVL version and is meant to replace the Harrier. And the C is out to replace the F-18.
 
The F-22 is supposed to replace the F-15, and I'm pretty sure that the F-35 (as a whole) is supposed to replace pretty much everything else but the A-10.
 
I hate to interrup this discussion regarding the F-22, but the AP has an interesting Fact Check of the president's speech last night.

His comments and the facts seem to be off, including his thoughts on the arrest of Mr. Gates.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I guess he hasn't had time to actually read the 1,000+ page proposals that he is urging Congress to rush.

On Tuesday Senator Tom Coburn proposed an amendment that would require all members and their staff to enroll in a new government-run health plan. It passed by one vote, and it is expected to be taken out before this bill is passed, if it is. One Republican, Sen, Judd Gregg, was at least honest about why he did not vote for it:
...will be so bad that I don't think anyone should be forced to join.
 
What happens when diplomacy fails?

Then we use our 180 Raptors that we already have. And in the unlikely event that we needed more, you can bet they would get made. Quickly.
 
I do, however, agree. We honestly don't need it at this immediate moment, especially not with the government already spending money like water. But in the next five to ten years we drastically need to start replacing the F-15C before they start dropping out of the skies. The F-35 wasn't designed to do so (and it shouldn't be used to do so regardless considering we will be exporting them). The F-22 was. The main problem I see with the F-22 is the cost, which I would hope would come down.

So you agree that 180 is enough? Great, discussion over then. Why waste more money on such an old design when the next step (pilotless planes) are in the near future and will be as costly (if not more) when they are introduced?

E: Can we ban anymore Glenn Beck and O'Reilly links btw? It just clutters the thread with ****. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907150016
 
Last edited:
Why waste more money on such an old design when the next step (pilotless planes) are in the near future and will be as costly (if not more) when they are introduced?
There isn't a big enough roll eyes smilie on the entire internet that expresses how poor of I idea I think that is.
 
While drones are extremely useful, you'll never make them react as a human would. Even if there is a human flying it through a computer screen, it's still not the same thing as having a pilot fly a plane. Plus it's not like we are loosing a ton of plane (or any planes) to enemy fire, most of the time we lose plane to accidents or pilot error.
 
E: Can we ban anymore Glenn Beck and O'Reilly links btw? It just clutters the thread with ****. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907150016

Have you listened to Beck or O'Reilly before or do you just let a Left wing hate site do the thinking for you?

The caller that set off Beck claimed that he didn't care about the other bailouts for the car industry and banks and only focused on Obama's Cap and Trade and health care bills. I'm sorry to inform you, but Beck has been complaining about the bailouts for some time now, under both Bush and Obama. Clearly, the caller takes her kool-aid marching orders from Left wing hate sites such as Media Matters and never once listened to Beck. I would go insane as well if I met someone who was so obviously brain washed.



As long as Beck and O'Reilly use facts to discuss their opinions, I will continue to post them
 
Beck and O'Reily are both idiots, along with just about every other political commentator on the airwaves. All they are, are a bunch of loud mouths who think they have all the answers but instead of actively doing something about it they go in front of a camera and bitch. This goes for Conservatives and Liberals alike.

People who listen to them can't think for themselves as far as I'm concerned. Come up with your own opinions, not what some guy tells you.
 
I'm not paid to do it, nor do I have a bunch of mindless sheep following every word I say. I discuss things, I complain about this, I debate things, wouldn't be much of a conversation if I didn't.

I also say everything in a medium that can be directly responded to. Typing on a forum and having a face to face conversation are fairly close to one another. Getting in front of the camera to spout your opinion with no real direct response from the viewer is a lot different. I can complain about Rush Limbaugh for whatever reason, but if I sent him an e-mail or tried to call him nothing would ever come about it.
 
Good for you. So do I.

And your point? :confused:

I was talking about idiotic commentators, not you. If you hang on everyone of their words, then so be it, if you don't so be it. You haven't said either way so there was nothing addressing you specifically.

I just think maybe people should think for themselves on issues instead of think what some halfwit behind a camera or a microphone says. Unfortunately right wing commentators seem to be the worse, but people like Michael Moore sure give them a run for their money.

I agree with Vasco though, I don't think posting links to these guys is really that important to the discussions in this thread. They all say a lot of stuff without a ton of substance. Give your opinion on the matter, not someone else's.
 
I think people should think for themselves as well. I post these videos because I either agree with their opinion or they discuss a crucial point that most others are missing.

The people who let Media Matters take over their thought process are the real problem.
 
I think people should think for themselves as well. I post these videos because I either agree with their opinion or they discuss a crucial point that most others are missing.

The people who let Media Matters take over their thought process are the real problem.

You seem to be posting their opinion. More often than not I see you post one giant, bolded sentence and a YouTube video. Nothing more. It's kind of hard to see how that is being used to illustrate a point. Making a lengthy post where you are discussing a point, and then including a video with a statement like "O'Reily brought up a similar issue on his show on the 23 July 2009, here's what he had to say. I tend to agree with him for the following reasons." Many other posters do it, I know Omnis does it quite frequently.

I see no merit to the discussion to post random video by commentators. They already give their opinions in the media and if we want to watch them, then we can tune into the channel they broadcast on or go and see their "documentaries" in Michael Moore's case. On a forum I think people are more interested to hear what you have to say, not someone else.
 
You seem to be posting their opinion. More often than not I see you post one giant, bolded sentence and a YouTube video. Nothing more. It's kind of hard to see how that is being used to illustrate a point. Making a lengthy post where you are discussing a point, and then including a video with a statement like "O'Reily brought up a similar issue on his show on the 23 July 2009, here's what he had to say. I tend to agree with him for the following reasons." Many other posters do it, I know Omnis does it quite frequently.

I see no merit to the discussion to post random video by commentators. They already give their opinions in the media and if we want to watch them, then we can tune into the channel they broadcast on or go and see their "documentaries" in Michael Moore's case. On a forum I think people are more interested to hear what you have to say, not someone else.

👍

I agree. Politcal Commentators are the lowest of the low on both sides of the issue. They brainwash whoever is dumb enough to let their bull:censored: sink in. Just listen to the news and don't let some idiot shouting at the top of his lungs and turning and twisting stories in their favor sway your opinion.
 
Making a lengthy post where you are discussing a point...

I'm sure as hell not gonna do that. I would fall asleep from typing it and no one would read it, even if they wanted to.
*TOTALLY* RANDOM VIDEO



Bill O'Reily brought up a similar issue on his show on the July 22, 2009 show, here's what he had to say. I tend to agree with him for the following reasons:


  • The President was incoherent in his speech, gave no real details
  • I agree with Bill O'Reilly and hopefully, by posting this video, someone else will agree with us who wasn't able to see the show.
  • It just might spark a discussion.
  • They present both sides of opinions, unlike Media Matters and other Mainstream Media.
  • I get to make my own decisions. I do not get chastised for agreeing with them.
  • Sometimes I disagree with both O'Reilly and Beck. I like to fast forward through the Ron Paul segments.
  • I already typed too much. Congratulations if you made it this far.
  • Watching commentators does not make you dumb, stupid, or a sheep that's led around. Listening to no one may make you worse than I.
 
Have you listened to Beck or O'Reilly before or do you just let a Left wing hate site do the thinking for you?

The caller that set off Beck claimed that he didn't care about the other bailouts for the car industry and banks and only focused on Obama's Cap and Trade and health care bills. I'm sorry to inform you, but Beck has been complaining about the bailouts for some time now, under both Bush and Obama. Clearly, the caller takes her kool-aid marching orders from Left wing hate sites such as Media Matters and never once listened to Beck. I would go insane as well if I met someone who was so obviously brain washed.



As long as Beck and O'Reilly use facts to discuss their opinions, I will continue to post them


:lol: However, Beck is better than O'Reilly. O'Reilly is more of a Bush neocon-- just look at him talking about price controls in that segment. And the foreign policy endorsements are obvious at this point. He's more down-right, whereas beck is more up-right.
 
Last edited:
:lol: However, Beck is better than O'Reilly.

Beck should be right up your ally. Having Ron Paul on the show and a bunch of Libertarians! So much for that "Right-wing" stuff, huh?

I like Beck because I can relate to him. I'm not gonna sit here and type out a bunch of crap for you not to read. I rather use cookie dough and doll houses... maybe even a YouTube video here and there to make my point. It's certainly more interesting.
 
:rolleyes:

Wow I see you really can't make a serious post. Basically all I got out of that post was that I should watch that video for your opinion, fantastic.

When it comes to Obama's health car reform I suggest people look at FoolKiller's post #2649. He took information and generated an opinion based on it and did not let someone else make his statement for him, but rather took an editorial and used it to support his opinion...not to mention used government data to support it too.

As far as I can tell the US is going about socialism medicine the completely wrong way. If we are going to do it, and it seem inevitable that we are, I hope to the gods we actually put some thought into it instead of rushing it through Congress.

Really what would be better is to really put all these drug companies and doctors into check. I got a bill from the dentist, it was $265 for him to look in my mouth for 30 seconds and tell me I didn't have an cavities and for the hygienist to clean my teeth for 20 minutes. So effectively I was there 30 minutes and it was $265 to my insurance...really? And the sad part is, it doesn't matter what dentist I do to, they will all charge a fortune for a tiny bit of work.

I see real no way to combat this either, you have to have health care so you can't boycott it. You can shop around but most insurance requires you to go to a certain doctor. I know a lot of you think social medicine is bad, but do you have a realistic way to fix the problem?
 
Just listen to the news and don't let some idiot shouting at the top of his lungs and turning and twisting stories in their favor sway your opinion.
I agree, which is why this is exactly what I do whenever the President begins talking about policies which affect the economy.
 
I agree, which is why this is exactly what I do whenever the President begins talking about policies which affect the economy.

The one thing that differs between Obama and commentators is that you can take what Obama to say as "fact". Meaning it's more or less coming straight from the source, whether what he is saying is right or wrong. I don't disagree there is a lot to criticise with him though.

I'm still up in the air about Obama, he's done some things that I can agree with but he's done things that I don't agree with at all. I guess in the end he's just a politician.
 
:rolleyes:

Wow I see you really can't make a serious post. Basically all I got out of that post was that I should watch that video for your opinion, fantastic.

When it comes to Obama's health car reform I suggest people look at FoolKiller's post #2649. He took information...

sleepy.gif


Keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing mine. Thanks. 👍
 
Back