The 44th President Obama!!!!

[carandru]

Gun sales soar with Obama election - Breaking News From Oregon & Portland - Oregonlive.com

I guess this is good for the economy

(or that this is breaking news). I would imagine that stricter gun laws would affect those who own guns just as much as those who want to purchase them. I don't really see the benefit of snatching up every assault rifle and handgun in town. But then again I don't own a gun and don't have a desire to anytime soon.

Any gun owners out there concerned over the possibility of stricter gun control laws?

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carandru Any gun owners out there concerned over the possibility of stricter gun control laws?

I'm not, but I know plenty who are. I live in Virginia LOL

 

[Jinni]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy there hasn't been one, imho, because we haven't really won yet. the world isn't safe from terrorism yet. we've still got a long, long road ahead of us which is why i think so many people are uneasy about obama's plan to withdraw troops by 2011, because the work isn't anywhere near done and obama wants to walk away.

Is there any reason to believe that "winning" the wars will make the world safe from terrorism? What will it take for the work to be done?

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinni Is there any reason to believe that "winning" the wars will make the world safe from terrorism? What will it take for the work to be done?

i honestly cannot say. i hate to say it, but we may never win the war on terrorism.

 

[carandru]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy i honestly cannot say. i hate to say it, but we may never win the war on terrorism.

Of course we won't. Terrorism isn't a place or a person so how do you measure whether or not you defeat it? I have a feeling that it will be just like our never ending war on drugs.

 

[Jinni]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy i honestly cannot say. i hate to say it, but we may never win the war on terrorism.

I agree.

I just think we need to be very careful in the way this was is fought. I'm not saying that using force doesn't has its place, but the focus might need to be put elsewhere. I don't believe most poeple become terrorist if they have a resonably good lift. It's often the last way out of a life that has no future. By using force we risk taking the future away from more people and creating fear, desperation, poverty, etc. All the things that breed fantatism.

 

[FullWroth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinni What will it take for the work to be done?

A zombie apocalypse would do it.

We really need to stop declaring wars on IDEAS and focus on the tangible manifestation of that idea that we're going after. The "war on terror" is going about as well as the "war on drugs." (See, I'm not just being anti-Bush, the war on drugs bullshit was Clinton's idea.) If we have a SPECIFIC terrorist in mind (like, uh, you know, Bin Laden, that one guy we were supposed to be looking for before we got distracted like a giant, super-powered ADD kid), or a specific terrorist group (like, you know, those crazy Taliban/Al Qaeda fuckers), that's different. But declaring a war on terror itself was one of the stupidest things we've ever done, IMO.

We shouldn't've left a mess in Afghanistan and run off to Iraq going OO SHINY NEW TOY before we were done there, IMO. It's irresponsible, and it probably created a lot more anti-American terrorists than it destroyed. I hope Obama's policies can help us repair some of the damage we've done, and I'm glad he realizes that, even though it sucks and our soldiers need a freakin' break, we made this mess and we have to clean it up now, because leaving a power vacuum in a poverty-stricken, war-torn country is far more dangerous and irresponsible than invading it in the first place (hi, post-WW1 Germany!).

But maybe next we can declare a war on rainbows and see how that goes instead.

 

[*Stargazer*]

FullWroth is 100% correct.

The Taliban/Al Qaeda can be routed. Terrorism cannot be defeated. It's not like it's a new thing since 2001 or that the US is the only one fighting terrorists. Terrorists come in all nationalities and religions and their fights are all different.

 

[carandru]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWroth But maybe next we can declare a war on rainbows and see how that goes instead.

I would personally prefer a war on darkness. I'm terrified of that. Besides, I have always liked rainbows

 

[SparklingWaves]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer What does the term "back door draft" have to do with the war on terrorism? Let me reiterate, there's no back door draft. There's NO servicemember who should be surprised by an extension of time. None of them. Not one single service member. To answer your question, a pivotal point hasn't been defined.

Page 5 of 20 goes directly into the topic in the reference provided for your convenience.

http://www.iava.org/documents/Military_Readiness.pdf

What is a Backdoor Draft?
My opinion on the topic remains unchanged at this time. I respect yours and appreciated your input.

This is just one of those things where people will just peacefully disagree.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparklingWaves Page 5 of 20 goes directly into the topic in the reference provided for your convenience. http://www.iava.org/documents/Military_Readiness.pdf What is a Backdoor Draft? My opinion on the topic remains unchanged at this time. I respect yours and appreciated your input. This is just one of those things where people will just peacefully disagree.

There's no room for disagreement because you're wrong.

That sounds obnoxious I know but a draft is something someone is forced into unwillingly, unknowing of the timeframe and commitment requirements.
A stop loss and a completion of the full eight years of service AS DEMANDED BY THE CONTRACT THE SERVICEMEMBER SIGNED ON THE DAY OF ENROLLMENT INTO THE UNITED STATES MILITARY is not a draft. It's not a backdoor draft. It's not something that someone jumps up and says "SURPRISE!!" :confetti:
It's a logical reality that servicemembers are told to expect from the beginning of enlistment. It's something that just happens. The ones who complain about the stop losses are the ones who joined to get college money and 'never thought they'd have to really actually DEPLOY'. The ones who complain are the whiners and victims of the world who don't think it's fair because it's not in line with what they want (oh yes, I did go there).
It's in the contract.
It's BOLDED in portions of the contract.
The contract is discussed NUMEROUS times during the enlistment process.
They sign the contract knowing that stop losses could happen.
There's no surprise.
There's no backdoor draft.


It's NOT a draft, there's no room for interpretation, there's not room for interpretation. The fact that the phrase was coined by John freaking Kerry of all people truly detracts from its grounding in reality.

 

[*Stargazer*]

That wisegeek link is hilarious.

Waaahh!! They're trying to make me do what I signed up to do! Waaahh!! I took all the incentive money and now they expect me to fulfill MY end of the deal.

 

[SparklingWaves]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer There's no room for disagreement because you're wrong. That sounds obnoxious I know but a draft is something someone is forced into unwillingly, unknowing of the timeframe and commitment requirements. A stop loss and a completion of the full eight years of service AS DEMANDED BY THE CONTRACT THE SERVICEMEMBER SIGNED ON THE DAY OF ENROLLMENT INTO THE UNITED STATES MILITARY is not a draft. It's not a backdoor draft. It's not something that someone jumps up and says "SURPRISE!!" :confetti: It's a logical reality that servicemembers are told to expect from the beginning of enlistment. It's something that just happens. The ones who complain about the stop losses are the ones who joined to get college money and 'never thought they'd have to really actually DEPLOY'. The ones who complain are the whiners and victims of the world who don't think it's fair because it's not in line with what they want (oh yes, I did go there). It's in the contract. It's BOLDED in portions of the contract. The contract is discussed NUMEROUS times during the enlistment process. They sign the contract knowing that stop losses could happen. There's no surprise. There's no backdoor draft. It's NOT a draft, there's no room for interpretation, there's not room for interpretation. The fact that the phrase was coined by John freaking Kerry of all people truly detracts from its grounding in reality.

You stand by the policy of the print and I disagree with it. I don't agree that everyone that disagrees with it is someone that wants money for college or is a whiner. You think I am wrong. I disagree with you.

I could go into this more, but this is stagnate. There is no point. Can we please move on now?


To Stargazer, I put the Wisegeeks link up to help those understand what we were discussing. I do realize you think I am wrong too. That's really okay with me.

 

[FullWroth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparklingWaves You stand by the policy of the print and I disagree with it.

You're arguing Straw Man there. Shimmer hasn't commented on the quality of the policy at all.

She's correcting you because it's a matter of definition.

A draft is being recruited into the army by force.
A backdoor draft is being forcibly retained by the army after your terms of service are up.

Their terms of service aren't up - it's just that in normal circumstances, they're not NEEDED longer. In wartime, they are. They knew this when they signed the contracts (or they didn't freakin' read the contracts, which is just dumb), therefore they willingly agreed to this situation when they signed. If they didn't agree to this policy, they should not have signed the contract and they should not have joined the military.

It's not something you can agree to disagree on because it's strictly a matter of definition. You are wrong and she is right. Where there are facts, there is no room for differing opinions. It's like you're holding up a fork and going "This is a KNIFE!" and Shimmer's going "No, it's actually a fork." You can't just agree to disagree because it'll never be a knife no matter how many times you call it one.

Does the policy suck? Is it wrong? Is it immoral, is it legally irresponsible? That's a different debate entirely, and in THAT debate there's plenty of room for differing opinions. But is it a draft? No, by the very definition of the word "draft" it cannot be, and that's what Shimmer was contesting, not whether or not the policy was a good one.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWroth You're arguing Straw Man there. Shimmer hasn't commented on the quality of the policy at all. She's correcting you because it's a matter of definition. A draft is being recruited into the army by force. A backdoor draft is being forcibly retained by the army after your terms of service are up. Their terms of service aren't up - it's just that in normal circumstances, they're not NEEDED longer. In wartime, they are. They knew this when they signed the contracts (or they didn't freakin' read the contracts, which is just dumb), therefore they willingly agreed to this situation when they signed. If they didn't agree to this policy, they should not have signed the contract and they should not have joined the military. It's not something you can agree to disagree on because it's strictly a matter of definition. You are wrong and she is right. Where there are facts, there is no room for differing opinions. It's like you're holding up a fork and going "This is a KNIFE!" and Shimmer's going "No, it's actually a fork." You can't just agree to disagree because it'll never be a knife no matter how many times you call it one. Does the policy suck? Is it wrong? Is it immoral, is it legally irresponsible? That's a different debate entirely, and in THAT debate there's plenty of room for differing opinions. But is it a draft? No, by the very definition of the word "draft" it cannot be, and that's what Shimmer was contesting, not whether or not the policy was a good one.

Precisely.

 

[SparklingWaves]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carandru I would personally prefer a war on darkness. I'm terrified of that. Besides, I have always liked rainbows

This is so cute. I love rainbows too.

 

[SparklingWaves]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWroth You're arguing Straw Man there. Shimmer hasn't commented on the quality of the policy at all. She's correcting you because it's a matter of definition. A draft is being recruited into the army by force. A backdoor draft is being forcibly retained by the army after your terms of service are up. Their terms of service aren't up - it's just that in normal circumstances, they're not NEEDED longer. In wartime, they are. They knew this when they signed the contracts (or they didn't freakin' read the contracts, which is just dumb), therefore they willingly agreed to this situation when they signed. If they didn't agree to this policy, they should not have signed the contract and they should not have joined the military. It's not something you can agree to disagree on because it's strictly a matter of definition. You are wrong and she is right. Where there are facts, there is no room for differing opinions. It's like you're holding up a fork and going "This is a KNIFE!" and Shimmer's going "No, it's actually a fork." You can't just agree to disagree because it'll never be a knife no matter how many times you call it one. Does the policy suck? Is it wrong? Is it immoral, is it legally irresponsible? That's a different debate entirely, and in THAT debate there's plenty of room for differing opinions. But is it a draft? No, by the very definition of the word "draft" it cannot be, and that's what Shimmer was contesting, not whether or not the policy was a good one.

This is really funny. It reminds me of this clip. Thanks for this. Now, how many times can I ask for this to move forward?

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic

 

[carandru]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...linton.html?em

hmmmm... Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State eh? I like the idea but I don't, lol. I honestly feel like they would clash with each other more than aid each other. They seem to share the same goals for the country but offer some differing yet aggressive strategies. IMO she tends to take good ideas and run way to far with them making them almost impractical. But seeing how Obama is aggressive in his right, I feel like this could make either a very good or a very bad team

.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carandru Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State eh?

good lord, i hope not.

 

[benzito_714]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carandru http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...linton.html?em hmmmm... Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State eh? I like the idea but I don't, lol. I honestly feel like they would clash with each other more than aid each other. They seem to share the same goals for the country but offer some differing yet aggressive strategies. IMO she tends to take good ideas and run way to far with them making them almost impractical. But seeing how Obama is aggressive in his right, I feel like this could make either a very good or a very bad team .

i was thinking the same thing. she is a very ambitious woman-in a Lady MacBeth, mother in Manchurian Candidate kind of way. i pride myself on being aggressive but not in a way where it blinds my focus and overtakes my entire being-the way i think it is doing to hilary clinton.