The Watering Hole

Hold up horse fly.

I was silent because I was a Bush conservative. I also was silent because I knew much less then about politics. I still lack a lot of understanding but at least I try to see both sides in a fair way. I'm a slow learner but give me credit for the effort, or at least don't kick me around because I "use" to be a conservative 100%.

How about the timing of this expense? Fucking rediculous shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/pl_nm/us_usa_russia_nuclear

Hookbender — May 14, 2010Hold up horse fly.

I was silent because I was a Bush conservative. I also was silent because I knew much less then about politics. I still lack a lot of understanding but at least I try to see both sides in a fair way. I'm a slow learner but give me credit for the effort, or at least don't kick me around because I "use" to be a conservative 100%.

How about the timing of this expense? Fucking rediculous shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/pl_nm/us_usa_russia_nuclear

8 billion a year for 10 years to reduce our (and Russia's) nuclear arsenal by 30%?  Shit, that's dirt cheap.  Iraq costs us $8 billion a month.

I wish the reduction was 90%, but that would never fly.

Hookbender — May 14, 2010Hold up horse fly.

I was silent because I was a Bush conservative. I also was silent because I knew much less then about politics. I still lack a lot of understanding but at least I try to see both sides in a fair way. I'm a slow learner but give me credit for the effort, or at least don't kick me around because I "use" to be a conservative 100%.

How about the timing of this expense? Fucking rediculous shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/pl_nm/us_usa_russia_nuclear

Did you read this article?

Russia said on Wednesday it may lift the veil on its nuclear arsenal after the treaty with the United States comes into force.
If it does, that could raise pressure on other nuclear powers -- such as China, Pakistan, India and Israel -- to disclose their capabilities and potentially put global nuclear stockpiles on a downward trend, analysts say.

I'm not sure how you could read this as anything but good news.

You need to seek help. Enjoy your illness. No sense talking to you about this anymore.

Hook is just proposing that the US saves 80bn by snubbing Russia
starting a global arms race and cold war and resurrecting SDI.
Then you have 80bn saved from this will help pay the several trillion
costs of refusing it.

I wonder how many billion it was costing anyway to maintain those old nukes?

CraigBert — May 14, 2010I wonder how many billion it was costing anyway to maintain those old nukes?

Probably a shitload. Old tech like that requires people be trained in technologies that are no longer even viable, and the containment systems alone for old nuclear tech are wild.

Hook will argue about any matter of money now, no matter how small.  To me, 8 billion a year for something that important is tiny--but that's just me.

Between 1940 and 1998, we spent $5.5 trillion on our nuclear arsenal.  To put that in perspective, that's the third biggest expenditure, besides 1) the military as a whole, and 2) Social Security, for which money actually specifically came in.

$80 billion to reduce that by 30% seems a relative bargain.  But maybe we should just oppose all spending on principle anyway. Another government failure, right?

the state of disrepair of our nuclear arsenal is embarrassing. anything done to improve that gets my vote. and we can reduce nukes as much as we want. a small percentage of our current arsenal is enough to blanket the earth anyways.

chase — May 14, 2010the state of disrepair of our nuclear arsenal is embarrassing. anything done to improve that gets my vote. and we can reduce nukes as much as we want. a small percentage of our current arsenal is enough to blanket the earth anyways.

Yeah, that's what's amazing to me... I found this quote on Orrin Hatch's site...

“This proposal does not sufficiently lay out how many land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) we will need as a nation. Furthermore, we recently reduced the number from 500 to 450, and I fear further reductions are unwarranted and counter-productive to our national security.”

I almost choked on my coffee when I read that.  I think 50 nuclear ICBMs could pretty much end humanity... but Hatch wasn't sure if reducing below 450 would work for our national security?

A rogue state could hold the world hostage with 1.

It does seem humorous on the surface, but not all of those are even IN the U.S.  We "lend" some to NATO countries and allies as well.

From Wikipedia: "Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store."

I'm guessing Israel might be secretly on the list as well.  I don't know if any were sent to Great Britain either.

Then you go into the issue of putting them on multiple sites so that a single strike from an opposing force can't take out your response plus the fact that one bomb really isn't enough (even in the Middle East though it does cause a lot of issues until one is used).

When you ask the average person how many nukes have been detonated, you'll usually get a range of answers from a few dozen to TWO (from the dipsticks that only count Hiroshima and Nagasaki).  The real number is over 2,000 with almost 1,800 being done by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.  France, the U.K., China, India, Pakistan and, now, North Korea have all done at least two tests each.

I'm not saying I agree that we need that many, but when you do the math of how many would be required to "do the job" multiplied by having them at multiple launch sites, then that number goes up pretty quick.

Needless to say, 50 nukes won't come close to ending humanity - I believe the Cold War numbers were that the U.S. could wipe out the World three times over while the U.S.S.R. could do it seven times over so, according to those numbers, it must take over 10,000 atmospheric blasts since the U.S. used to have over 31,000 nukes.

...but were they at once...in populated areas?

CraigBert — May 14, 2010
Then you go into the issue of putting them on multiple sites so that a single strike from an opposing force can't take out your response plus the fact that one bomb really isn't enough .

Hey - Dr Strangelove  ;D

Depends on what you mean by ending humanity,

Just needs a few of these - most efficient in wiping humans

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


Nukes are only a deterent they have no military use.

Trident Submarines provide deterence.

Good point.  Apathy and our current Congress appear to be the real causes behind wiping out humanity.

fingers — May 14, 2010Hook is just proposing that the US saves 80bn by snubbing Russia
starting a global arms race and cold war and resurrecting SDI.
Then you have 80bn saved from this will help pay the several trillion
costs of refusing it.

What's with you and Charger and your wild speculation and shit? If I proposed something here, you'd be able to quote me here.

charger — May 14, 2010[quote author=CraigBert link=1272178696/200#205 date=1273855424]I wonder how many billion it was costing anyway to maintain those old nukes?

Probably a shitload. Old tech like that requires people be trained in technologies that are no longer even viable, and the containment systems alone for old nuclear tech are wild.

Hook will argue about any matter of money now, no matter how small.  To me, 8 billion a year for something that important is tiny--but that's just me.

80b isn't a small number. And 8 billion here, 10 billion here, millions there....yeah fuck it, overall they are individually small numbers. But damn those numbers add up don't they!

And yes your right. I would argue against spending any amount of money right now. Because I just don't understand how you can spend when your so in the negative. But, I'm learning through our fearless leader! ;D

Hookbender — May 15, 2010[quote author=charger link=1272178696/200#206 date=1273859961][quote author=CraigBert link=1272178696/200#205 date=1273855424]I wonder how many billion it was costing anyway to maintain those old nukes?

Probably a shitload. Old tech like that requires people be trained in technologies that are no longer even viable, and the containment systems alone for old nuclear tech are wild.

Hook will argue about any matter of money now, no matter how small.  To me, 8 billion a year for something that important is tiny--but that's just me.

80b isn't a small number. And 8 billion here, 10 billion here, millions there....yeah fuck it, overall they are individually small numbers. But damn those numbers add up don't they!

And yes your right. I would argue against spending any amount of money right now. Because I just don't understand how you can spend when your so in the negative. But, I'm learning through our fearless leader! ;D


Dude, you have never lived under a president who didn't spend when the budget was in deficit.  Ever.  Stop acting like Obama invented deficit spending.  I understand that you want a president who will not spend money, but that will never happen.

The reality is if this president was a Republican and white, there would be no "tea parties" and minimal outcry.  I know this because Bush spent very similarly and no one gave a shit.

"Dude, you have never lived under a president who didn't spend when the budget was in deficit.  Ever.  Stop acting like Obama invented deficit spending.  I understand that you want a president who will not spend money, but that will never happen. "

"The reality is if this president was a Republican and white, there would be no "tea parties" and minimal outcry.  I know this because Bush spent very similarly and no one gave a shit. "

What about Clinton? He had a few bucks to spare when Bush took over and went crazy.

And if Obama being black, and a Democrat, finally wakes us the fuck up.....Good!

And to excuse this Presidents careless spending by pointing out others careless spending is a pretty piss poor argument.

Hookbender — May 18, 2010"Dude, you have never lived under a president who didn't spend when the budget was in deficit.  Ever.  Stop acting like Obama invented deficit spending.  I understand that you want a president who will not spend money, but that will never happen. "

"The reality is if this president was a Republican and white, there would be no "tea parties" and minimal outcry.  I know this because Bush spent very similarly and no one gave a shit. "

What about Clinton? He had a few bucks to spare when Bush took over and went crazy.

And if Obama being black, and a Democrat, finally wakes us the fuck up.....Good!

And to excuse this Presidents careless spending by pointing out others careless spending is a pretty piss poor argument.

Wrong.  Clinton had surpluses, but we still had a massive deficit, because the deficit is much bigger than could be paid off with a few years of budget surplus.

If you think that "careless spending" = rescuing the US economy from devastating disaster, and getting almost everybody onto the healthcare rolls, we have very different definitions of carelessness.

I'd say Clinton was on the right track, and that would be my point.

What we have here is one who's gonna fight to the death protecting the liberal democratic president and the other who doesn't give to much of a shit about either party, period. Or, who's president.

Don't you think the country is far more important than your libereral flag waving?

That's a bullshit argument.  I happen to agree that we were in dire financial straits.  And I agree with healthcare.  Which, if you remember correctly, Clinton also tried to do and could not get done.

I don't think everything Obama has done is great.  But these are the big things.  The economy is in recovery. And he got healthcare instituted.

You think I'm cheering for him because I'm a liberal?  Obama is about as liberal as the sky is green.  He's moderate, centrist, middle of the road.  This is the guy who gave a Nobel Peace prize speech about the value of war, who called to open up the US seaboard to oil drilling, who, for my money, has let Republicans shape and water down his agenda more than even Clinton, who actually had to work with a Pub Congress.

He doesn't walk on water.  He thinks too much.  He looks to hard at both sides of an issue.

But--the economy is clearly in recovery, two years into his term.  And he got healthcare passed.

What do you want me to say, that getting things that I support done is not something I desire?  Why the fuck did you vote for him, if you were so opposed to his agenda?  Just because you have buyer's remorse, that doesn't make me responsible for it.  You knew his plans.  I voted for them.  If you voted in error, well, why?  You live in freaking Alabama.  There was absolutely no point in you voting for Obama in the first place... not the least of the reasons being, you apparently don't support anything he campaigned for--at all.  

Hookbender — May 18, 2010

Don't you think the country is far more important than your libereral flag waving?

Don't you think it's more important than your tea party bandwagon?

Touché, motherfucker.  

You don't think saving the country from the second great depression was important for our country?
You don't think that the objects of the healthcare plan are important for our country?

charger — May 18, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/200#219 date=1274154389]

Don't you think the country is far more important than your libereral flag waving?

Don't you think it's more important than your tea party bandwagon?

Touché, motherfucker.  

You don't think saving the country from the second great depression was important for our country?
You don't think that the objects of the healthcare plan are important for our country?


Motherfucker??? Damn.

Peace out beach boy!

Tea Party. ;D Yeah, that's me alright. ::)

Yeah, saving the country from a second great depression would be notable. I think what Obama's done with the economy is pretty decent, however. And I don't fault Obama for spending "that" money. I think I've had to say that in every other post now. However, I think he spent to little time on the economy and to much time on healthcare, that could have waited especially since he didn't get what he wanted and had no chance really to get it. Just such bad timing. Some things are good, some things are bad, some things are a unknown, concerning healthcare.

I agree that healthcare was a huge distraction. And it gave his enemies something to rally around.  In this day and age, nothing can ever get done without a massive pile of media misinformation flying all over the place.  But I think that we had already done enough for the economy to get it turned around.  It's not like if he sat there and fretted about the economy for the last year, anything would have happened.

The reality is healthcare should have been done in Clinton's first term. I applaud Obama for getting it done now, because I would rather not wait another 16 years.  And Obama might not be around in two more years.

In politics, the timing is never right.  The only people who are fortunate re: timing right now are the teabaggers. Everyone else is fucked.  However, that will change... in two years those teabaggers will be the incumbents and they'll have to defend their bullshit Washington establishment actions and they'll be fucked, too.

There are many aspects to the economy. I don't think Obama would have any time to sit around and fret about any one of those aspects.

Well, hook, at least he's asked for it...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264480783784068.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

i still don't understand why we can't pass a budget that wont run a deficit.


logical thinking = would it be nice? yes.. can we afford it? no...