Oh and also, isn't the US pretty well defended against nukes? I dunno.

I also love how Russia (I should say, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev), said just a few days ago in his first "state-of-the-union" type address, that he will be aiming his missiles at the missile defense shield that the US is building in eastern Europe. Granted they won't be nuclear, but it could well lead up to that.

Yet it won't be Russia, it'll be Iraq or Iran.

You do realize that we are allies with the government of Iraq? And that they don't have nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

lrn2internet

Was that to me?

If so, l2read

Yeah, because Wikipedia editors have personally inspected every country and organization in the world to see if they have nukes.

OR we could put it back into our economy so that I'm not shelling out a small fortune just to live in the US.

Vin, in short, you're saying we should ignore terrorism because if we fight it, we'll only provoke the terrorists and make it worse.
...I'm glad you're not in charge of our country.

Oh wait you are, just in the form of a black man named Barrack Obama.

Commander 598, see Vin's post. Thanks for beating me to it, Vin. I agree with you there.

Onimusha, put it in the economy where? You can't just say "Look, the economy's bad. Lets throw money at it!" and expect that to work (unless of course, you're Barrack Obama).

This.

I don't see what all the hubub about nuclear warheads is. We've got missles and most
likely satellites to intercept any nuke coming at us before it makes it halfway across whatever ocean it traverses.

I'd be more worried about laptop/suitcase bombs, or the poorly defended countries that won't be able to intercept a warhead, that will get plastered and produce fallout ash and consequently causing radiation sickness worldwide.



Well theres several ideas but one could be putting it back in our hands enough so we can climb out of debt and buy some pointless crap (TV's, gaming systems, cars, etc) to stimulate buisnesses in america and get the blood moving again. If everyone had money to gorge at christmas time, our economy would boost significantly and most buisnesses would pull out in the black after the holidays, thus improving the stock market which would improve everything as a whole due to increased monetary circultion in the buisness district.

what.

Do you really think that pulling us out is going to decrease the numbers?? lol, Barrack Obama is in office now. Terrorists are having kegger parties in celebration

Why is it that people who voted against Obama consistently misspell his first name?

When did I ever say we should ignore terrorism? I said we need to rethink what we're doing in Afghanistan and stop killing people in neighboring countries, not run away with our tail between our legs.

And if you think that's what Obama wants, you're really misinformed. I am actually arguing AGAINST Obama's position, at least when it comes to Afghanistan. He just wants to throw more troops in there.

Barack Obama doesn't want to ignore terrorism. I don't even know why someone would think that's the case. I can imagine someone making the claim to discourage people from voting for Obama, but I can't understand why anyone would believe it.

Typically the IQ of such voters is lower on average, and don't know a bunch about democratic candidates besides that they might be gay or a terrorist.

Or muslim.

Ha you're right Latis. I'm a total idiot.

Apparently I am as well. Maybe we should start a club!

Last time I checked, you weren't an idiot. Also last time I checked, exit polls didn't involve an IQ test. Although college graduates supported Obama more than non-grads, it doesn't mean they have a higher IQ.

Also, I used to spell it wrong too, so stfu. It's not a very common name.

College students supported Obama also (at least here)..and let me tell you, they're not exactly the most intelligent people around. We actually had a student grab a McCain sign from a McCain supporter and run off with it..

I never said that. I simply said that based on demographic data for voters, typically those who vote against Obama have a lower IQ than average.

Exactly, just because you went or go to college doesn't mean you're smart. I mean, look at Sarah Palin. It just means you went to college. You might *know* a few more things, but knowledge doesn't equal intelligence.

AND I'M WINKING SO NO ONE TAKES THE PALIN THING TOO HARD

That wiki's just a combined tl;dr of every internet based source on nuclear weapons.

Are you really trying to argue that ****ty third world states, most of whom don't even possess a functioning air force much less any missile capability beyond the RPG-7, miraculously possess the ability to construct nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea MIGHT have nuclear weapons, but it's taken Iran DECADES to MAYBE have something and it's basically a regional super power while NK's theoretical nuclear test was likely a misfire and they don't have enough nuclear material and functioning missiles on hand to be a credible threat to anyone but South Korea and Japan and even then firing their few [weak] nukes at them would be national suicide as China would likely rape NK simply for the PR boost.

Even if some ****ty third world state somehow possessed a nuke or two, it's still not much of a threat on any national level, unless you're a city-state, and then using it is just going to give several nations a perfectly good excuse to pull an 2nd Gulf War on you with over 9000 times the public support.

Nuclear weapons really aren't that big of a threat unless the one doing the threatening is a major power that can make several thousand craters on the other side of the world with the press of a button.

I've got $10 that says if India and Pakistan started flinging nukes at one another, the rest of the world would just sit back, wait for the dust to settle, then jointly go in and occupy the place in the name of good PR and Al Qaeda hunting.

A Bond villain is more likely to appear and try to destroy the world than any nuclear weapons that don't belong to NATO, Russia, or China.

Exactly..

obama supporters also stole or vandalized mccain signs all across the country

if it happened to an obama sign i'm sure the media would have been all over it

Don't forget the Obama supporter who carved a backwards B on a McCain campaign aide's cheek!

That is fantastic.

you mean the crazy lady out for publicity... alot different from some guy who wakes up and sees someone spray painted profanity on their mccain sign

Excellent.

I don't have a TV. Did those stories get much play? Just curious, I'm not trying to argue who's worse.

Although, when you have a candidate who's strongest supporters are young adults and blacks, you're going to have some more vandalism than a candidate who's strongest supporters are evangelicals and rich old white people.

I assume this thread was for jokes or maybe trolling because I fail to see how anyone would believe what Sarn has been posting.

You're right. Who could possibly believe I'm really an idiot?

I've spent so much time arguing politics on the interwebs that I can no longer distinguish feigned idiocy from the real thing.

:saddowns:

I've spent so much time arguing politics on the interwebs that I could have probably solved the world's political problems with that time instead.

What method would be used to "put it back in our hands," and what is "enough"? Tax cuts and stimulus packages? Public works? Buying bonds back? None of these options are ones that can very effectively or at all execute in the short term, which diminishes the viability of your "holiday shopping" proposal (see below).

The firms/industries hit hardest during recessions are capital producers and consumer durables producers, so you're right with your examples (Cars, TVs, gaming systems), but not because they're "pointless crap". People are going to hold off on buying things that last a long time and firms are going to hold off on investing in new capital because "the old one is still doing just fine". However...

This is irrelevant to capital because firms don't invest in new capital as a Christmas present to themselves. For consumers, the holidays may encourage spending, but not necessarily in consumer durables. The simple fact that it's Christmas won't override the applicability of the "the old one still works" mentality. I would venture that the firms/industries that would see the most of the increased holiday spending are the ones that also receive most of the nonholiday spending -- nondurable consumer goods producers (clothes, food, little gifts like coffee mugs or picture frames or whatnot).

Moreover, one surge in profits (if such a surge were to happen) isn't going to save a company's stock. Holiday profits (if any) are a PART of ONE QUARTER of a firm's annual profits.

So, in essence,

1) Increased holiday spending would not necessarily benefit the firms that need it the most,
2) Even if it did, it would not "fix" the stock market or the economy, and
3) Even if it did, the timeframe required to effect increased spending and consumption is too long for any action taken right now to be effective by the holiday shopping season.


The huge underlying problem (that was a substantial part of motivating the bailout plan) is that investor confidence is totally shot right now in all regards, whether it be in stocks, bonds (thanks, mortgage-backed "AAA" bonds), capital, whatever. Increasing/restoring spending and consumption is definitely essential but chronologically is not foundational (i.e. other things need to be done first to allow for it to happen).


[Also the government can't just "throw money" into the economy without thinking about it as it could cause inflation. Then we might get stagflation. Yay.]

you don't know what you're talking about, some ******* stole my "I am an... Obama Mama!" signs

how could they steal from a poor single mother?? :mad::mad::mad:

i refuse to believe your lies ted

I wouldn't necessarily say that... Toys R Us is in the red the entire year until the day after Thanksgiving.