Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002208-503544.htmlThe super great news about this is that Ron Paul only lost by one vote. 439-438. That's a major step forward for a guy considered a fringe looney toon.Mitt Romney would be a total disaster.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If there were a sure way to get Obama re-elected in 2012, it would be for the Republicans to nominate someone whose primary quality is that he's only 90% as bad as Obama.There are a number of Republicans that I could be convinced to vote for, and two or three I could vote for enthusiastically.I'd rather vote for Obama than Romney, though, because if we're going to move toward socialism, I'd rather leave it to the people who openly support it, not the people who put us there under the banner of capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I hate Republicans because Obama signed a sensible treaty with Russia to reduce our collective nuclear stockpiles.......and then Fox News spent the whole day chiding Obama for making us look weak......some of them like Sarah Palin openly wished for a return to a strong leader like Ronald Reagan.....who once proposed THE EXACT SAME TREATY THAT OBAMA JUST SIGNED.They aren't pushing back on Obama. They just say no to anything he says regardless of the content. Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich spent a good half hour lying about its contents. Fair and balanced is hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate Republicans because they smell bad and only brush their teeth once a week.
Pretty sure you are confusing republicans with pot smoking tree hugging hippy liberals.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sure you are confusing republicans with pot smoking tree hugging hippy liberals. vbnautalis
I hate that republicans are the best hope for this country...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Asked about Palin's criticism this morning on Good Morning America, Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "I really have no response, because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."[Obama] went on to state that the new policy was developed with experts such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen. To that, Obama said, “I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.”
I like that he's already slapping her down in anticipation of a 2012 race. The funny thing is, this reduction still leaves us with a gigantic number of missiles. Good lord, I hate republicans. Spin a huge positive for the human race into alarmist bullshit for political gain... sure, why not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like that he's already slapping her down in anticipation of a 2012 race. The funny thing is, this reduction still leaves us with a gigantic number of missiles. Good lord, I hate republicans. Spin a huge positive for the human race into alarmist bullshit for political gain... sure, why not.
I think you are wrong.Obama and the dems are going to run against Bush again in November and in 2012.They are not going to run against Palin unless they get desperate and have no actual message of their own.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like that he's already slapping her down in anticipation of a 2012 race. The funny thing is, this reduction still leaves us with a gigantic number of missiles. Good lord, I hate republicans. Spin a huge positive for the human race into alarmist bullshit for political gain... sure, why not.
not to mention it was basically RONALD REAGAN's idea. It was the idea of their favorite god after Jesus. And they still can't stop themselves from going into "OBAMA BAD!!" mode. It's as sad as it is insulting.It's good that Sarah Palin keeps actively destroying her own chances to be President though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
not to mention it was basically RONALD REAGAN's idea. It was the idea of their favorite god after Jesus. And they still can't stop themselves from going into "OBAMA BAD!!" mode. It's as sad as it is insulting.It's good that Sarah Palin keeps actively destroying her own chances to be President though.
Yea, I'm sure Obama went into the Presidential papers, pulled out Reagan's plan and resubmitted it exactly.This is Obama who only last week came out for offshore drilling...except in places that have water and or might have water in the future...Now I should preface this by saying that this is Masters week and if the TV is on it's watching the Masters so I have absolutely no clue what this nuke treaty is about or what it says..I am just trusting Obama to continue to be...Obama
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, I'm sure Obama went into the Presidential papers, pulled out Reagan's plan and resubmitted it exactly.This is Obama who only last week came out for offshore drilling...except in places that have water and or might have water in the future...Now I should preface this by saying that this is Masters week and if the TV is on it's watching the Masters so I have absolutely no clue what this nuke treaty is about or what it says..I am just trusting Obama to continue to be...Obama
exactly you are an internet character made of balloons. It is ok for you to just assume things and go about your business. Be nice to get a slightly higher level of attention from a "news" station.Cliffs notes: a lot of this treaty matches up word for word with things Reagan publicly said about decreasing our nuclear stockpiles. It's a nice start but it still leaves us enough nukes to blow up the world 100 times over if need be. Newt and Hannity went on TV and lied about its contents for 30 minutes. Jon Stewart make them look stupid. Sarah Palin continue to be easy fodder for comedians.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all about reducing the stockpiles. I do, however, think we need to do it in conjunction with testing and updating the technology of what's left. A legacy nintendo rivals the computers put in these things when they were originally built and that scares the hell out of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
See, I hate Republicans because Obama signed a sensible treaty with Russia to reduce our collective nuclear stockpiles.......and then Fox News spent the whole day chiding Obama for making us look weak......some of them like Sarah Palin openly wished for a return to a strong leader like Ronald Reagan.....who once proposed THE EXACT SAME TREATY THAT OBAMA JUST SIGNED.They aren't pushing back on Obama. They just say no to anything he says regardless of the content. Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich spent a good half hour lying about its contents. Fair and balanced is hard.
Wrong. Off-shore drilling.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all about reducing the stockpiles. I do, however, think we need to do it in conjunction with testing and updating the technology of what's left. A legacy nintendo rivals the computers put in these things when they were originally built and that scares the hell out of me.
This seems like a really good idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This seems like a really good idea.
Thanks. Obama isn't interested in the second half of the equation. Seems like a no-brainer. We don't lose any perceived effectiveness if we have the best technology in what's left of our weapons, and you reduce the chances that we have a catastrophic accident with the most powerful weapons on earth.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's as sad as it is insulting.
I'm more worried than I am sad or insulted. See: Dr. Strangelove
I'm all about reducing the stockpiles. I do, however, think we need to do it in conjunction with testing and updating the technology of what's left. A legacy nintendo rivals the computers put in these things when they were originally built and that scares the hell out of me.
I've heard NASA space shuttles run on just a few megabytes of RAM. Generally anything less than 2GB (2048MB) of RAM in a desktop computer is scoff-worthy. The reason they're in no hurry to upgrade is because the software they run is rigorously tested and elegant in its simplicity. Supposedly one issue with running a more complex set of processes (for NASA) is keeping things simple enough to be able to deal with radiation damage. H probably has more to say here.But yeah, I'm all for juicing up what we've got. Wiki claims the total number of warheads for each country:US: 5951Russia: 2825Assuming the 25-30% number, that's anywhere between 2194 and 2633 warheads that won't sit around threatening humanity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard NASA space shuttles run on just a few megabytes of RAM. Generally anything less than 2GB (2048MB) of RAM in a desktop computer is scoff-worthy. The reason they're in no hurry to upgrade is because the software they run is rigorously tested and elegant in its simplicity. Supposedly one issue with running a more complex set of processes (for NASA) is keeping things simple enough to be able to deal with radiation damage. H probably has more to say here.
If you know exactly what a computing machine is going to be used for, it's easy to keep it small and simple. Much of the processing can be coded directly with hardware. It's not like you're going to have to surf the internet with a nuclear missile.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you know exactly what a computing machine is going to be used for, it's easy to keep it small and simple. Much of the processing can be coded directly with hardware. It's not like you're going to have to surf the internet with a nuclear missile.
I got pretty pissed when I found out that the previous owner of my ICBM hadn't run windows update since Vista's SP1.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If there were a sure way to get Obama re-elected in 2012, it would be for the Republicans to nominate someone whose primary quality is that he's only 90% as bad as Obama.There are a number of Republicans that I could be convinced to vote for, and two or three I could vote for enthusiastically.I'd rather vote for Obama than Romney, though, because if we're going to move toward socialism, I'd rather leave it to the people who openly support it, not the people who put us there under the banner of capitalism.
Then again Bush won it twice.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not like you're going to have to surf the internet with a nuclear missile.
You would literally be the craziest bastard on the entire internet if you did though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard NASA space shuttles run on just a few megabytes of RAM. Generally anything less than 2GB (2048MB) of RAM in a desktop computer is scoff-worthy. The reason they're in no hurry to upgrade is because the software they run is rigorously tested and elegant in its simplicity. Supposedly one issue with running a more complex set of processes (for NASA) is keeping things simple enough to be able to deal with radiation damage. H probably has more to say here.
Back when I worked on defense, all mission critical software ran on custom hardware with custom software -- nothing off the shelf, like Windows or Unix. And it's for that very reason you point out -- how can you do thorough testing of a product that is not under your control. About the time I left defense work, they were much more accepting of off-the-shelf software, but I doubt they will ever reach the point where missiles are running on Windows.As to the nuke question, I think tying our reductions to other countries' reductions is probably a mistake. I think our nuclear stock should be no more and no less than it takes to defend our country. With technological advancements, that's probably a lot less than we have now. If we can use the fact that we plan to reduce our inventory as a negotiating ploy to get other countries to reduce theirs, all the better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As to the nuke question, I think tying our reductions to other countries' reductions is probably a mistake. I think our nuclear stock should be no more and no less than it takes to defend our country.
Doesn't that amount depend on what other countries have? I thought the idea was that we can both have less if the other side has less, so we cooperate to reduce the amount we each have.
Link to post
Share on other sites

well, lol at this nuke topic really.On one hand it does seem foolish to do this but Im sure there are reasons none of us will ever know.On the other hand the US and russia still have like 99% of the nukes on the planet and just 100 bombs each would lay waste to the entire globe. Me thinks several thousand is enough still (although Im gonna guess both sides have and additional 10 times more hidden somewhere)But yeah...I hate Republicans too. And Democrats. And pickled Herring. And ass rashes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
well, lol at this nuke topic really.On one hand it does seem foolish to do this but Im sure there are reasons none of us will ever know.On the other hand the US and russia still have like 99% of the nukes on the planet and just 100 bombs each would lay waste to the entire globe. Me thinks several thousand is enough still (although Im gonna guess both sides have and additional 10 times more hidden somewhere)But yeah...I hate Republicans too. And Democrats. And pickled Herring. And ass rashes.
the actual figure is estimated at 96%. really.carl sagan made a pretty hilarious/sad observation in cosmos re: nukes. we devoted at least a generation's worth of scientific research to weapons for the cold war, then signed a treaty to prevent the one potentially legitimate use for massive nuclear explosions: propulsion in space. If American hegemony persists for another few centuries, maybe we might someday inhabit other stars. Seems like nuclear weapons are the one big threat to that hope.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...