glumbert

I agree. Why was this video even made, much less posted?

Last gasp of a dying breed.

Good riddance.

Not at all.

I think you're bang-on the mark.

A never-ending Fargo movie.......

LMFAO!

Actually her voice is very nice when she's speaking normally. Its just those speeches where she sounds like a shrill gerbil. I don't understand your hatred toward her.

Couldn't somebody, anybody have told John to bleach his teeth? Yuk. Like rotted corn.

After the election she will be putting her brother in law into her wood chipper...don't cha know.

Is it your bias though? Did you think Hillary sounded sexy?

Neither IMO!

Well I honestly do hope never to hear the terms "maverick" and "my friends" ever again.

But I don't want to "hope for change" either. Hope is for suckers. Get off your ass and work for change.

Great advice.

I'm sure those fellas in your Revolutionary War would have been in a great shape if they followed it.

Not.

New day is dawning on YOU tomorrow, suckah.

Today is Get Right Day.

Now what the hell is that supposed to mean? You think the revolutionary soldiers sat around hoping real hard that the British would leave? No, they fought and sacrificed to drive them out, something you Canadians just wouldn't understand.

Well HD you're in my realm now!

Actually I'm sure that my ancestors sat around and Did "hope" for a little luck to come their way after being chased all the way off of long island down to southern Nj via Pa! If not for the Guidance Of a few.the many would have simply drifted off to resume life under George's thumb.

Yes I'm sure hope was what most of them did in the times when they all but froze to death or starved or just dropped dead from sickness! hope and prayer that is?

Awwwwww, Randy-Mannnnnn.......fuck.

Why'd ya have to go and explain it to him????

He'd have been stuck in Clueless Land forever, if you hadn't have stepped in!!!

Shit.

They sacrificed, risked freezing, starvation, getting shot, time away from families, all to remove George. Hope is a fine thing to have, so long as it motivates you to do something. Hoping for a break so they could fight back, is not nearly the same thing as hoping George would leave all on his own.

You want the American dream? You can hope for breaks, but you damn sure better be willing to work your ass off to sieze that opportunity. If you're just gonna sit on your ass and hope real hard, that hope isn't gonna do so much for you. That's my point.

Awwwwww, HD.....damn

Why did you have to explain it to him???

Wait...it's not like anyone actually tries to understand where you're coming from anyway.

Nevermind, carry on.

Hopefully she will fade like mr. Quayle, never to be in the public eye again!

...and a black hole will swallow the earth. It will be all Obama's fault.
...and a raccoon will get hit by a car somewhere. It will be all Obama's fault.
...and all those who work for failure will fail. It will be all Obama's fault.
...and all those who work for success will succeed. It will be all Obama's fault.
...

What you're already sick of everything being Obama's fault? Its no different than everything being Bush's fault. But I suppose republicans will have to suck it up and be bigger than the democrats in this nation.

With all the problems in this world and nation, all the promises Obama gave, and all the incredibly high expectations of Obama, there is simply no way he can deliver what you expect. You will be soundly dissappointed. Lets hope its only dissappointment, and not disaster.

How do you KNOW what I expect from Obama. What is it about being conservative that permits assignment of viewpoints on others, and blame for events that have not yet occurred?

I will give all those who wanted McCain / Palin, and the Bush cabinet (which would have remained in power) to continue, some time to grieve for the loss of such a stunning administrative success of the past eight years, and whatever they may have done in the next four.

Unlike you, I possess no vision of the success or failure of what either candidate would bring to the country at this time.

But I have no dismally dark crystal ball to predict what would have been, or what might actually occur. So, as I did with Bush, I will judge the POTUSE on his actions, and words as the new administration begins to act.

I for one will work hard for success, and not despair to failure.

Wow, I guess I must be the first here on glumbert to make an assumption about your viewpoint... Not. You are friggin testy. Don't mean to burst your euphoric Obama bubble. If Obama comes through on half his promised deliverables, I shall be truly impressed.

I will also continue working hard for success, but don't I get to despair even for day? I need my grieving time.

"You are friggin testy. Don't mean to burst your euphoric Obama bubble."

No, I just won't be defined by you, as something I am not. That is not being testy, that is being honest. I have no "euphoric Obama bubble" ( yet another applied viewpoint), perhaps you are confusing me with the others again.

"If Obama comes through on half his promised deliverables, I shall be truly impressed. "

I think we would all be impressed with that.

Obama at least seems to have his marbles together, much more than can be said about GWB.

HD, the installation of the missile defense in Eastern Europe is a fucking insult to Russia, a totally uncalled for and unilateral challenge by the USA. It might even be that the EU will interfere with this madness if it is not stopped.

Likely there will be fewer new wars caused by the USA in the next four years and that will also be Obamas fault.

Again, not saying Obama won't be better than Bush. I'm only comparing Obama's foreign policy weakness against McCain's foreign policy strength. Whether the missile defense was a slap to Russia isn't the point, its already going in now. Will Obama's first presidential act be to give in to the Russians, under threat, especially after the aggression in Georgia? Boy, that would sure set the pace for his presidency!

Granted the Russians fucked the pooch on this one. They could have quietly negotiated with Obama to remove the missile shield, gave him some room to save face, and Obama could have cut the missile shield as a "cost saving" measure. But now the Russians are already forcing Obama and Bush to act. They gave Obama little room to demonstrate his difference from Bush.

Just like Kennedy again, the Russians immediately challenge the new young president, and maybe push us to the brink of war again.

HD, it is the USA that had put the pressure on Russia by extending the NATO into East Europe and making the plans for a missile defense that makes no sense unless you see Russia as a threat. This has been GWBs making.

I agree Bug. Its provocative in execution, and intent. That is how our corporations make money, and the corporations buy the political policy.

Well I agree the location of the missile defense shield was provocative. But I don't agree with Podman's assessment of corporate greed. They could have placed the damn thing in Azerfuckastan as Russia suggested, and make the same money. I agree it maybe should not have been created, why do we need to protect Europeans from missiles, right bug?

But its there now, and Russia has issued a clear challenge, that puts Obama in a bad place. He may have wanted to kill the missile shield, now if he does what he may have wanted to, it looks like he just caved to Russian pressure. You should never cave to Russian pressure.

Yeah right, it is raining missiles here all day long, we really need to be protected from them. The US paranoia is not shared here.

Have a look at a fucking map. Placing the non functioning missile defense in Poland does not protect Europe, it only provokes Russia. If the system should be effective (if they ever get it to work that is) against the so called rouge nations it would have to be installed in the path of possible missiles, that would place it maybe in Turkey.

Ok bug, I took your advice and looked a few maps. If the idea of a missile shield is to protect Europe, Poland does seem to be a somewhat central location. Placing (let's pretend a moment) a functional missile shield in Turkey would seem to me to provoke Russia AND Iran. I will admit my ignorance here, but I don't see how that would be any better.

Bug, I know geography quite well thank you. I already admitted the missile defense shield was provocative against Russia, you don't read very well. I wasn't even saying we needed the damn thing, I'm not sure why Bush wants to continue protecting ungrateful Europeans from rogue missile threats. I can only assume its to protect against Russian missiles, hence the obvious threat to Russia.

I'm pretty sure the system does work however. While some tests have been less then completely realistic, the Patriot was hitting Scuds over Israel in 91, and technology has vastly improved since then.

My only point is this will be the first international challenge to Obama's complete lack of foreign policy experience, not within 6 months of Obama taking office, but even before he takes office. I don't believe the Russians would have challenged McCain on this, but I can't prove that. Obama's first act will be to collapse under Russian pressure. The world is not safer with a weak US president. I'm afraid it will be Jimmy Carter all over again.

HD, I am following news about military developments, the tests with the missile defense were not quite good. Patriot is a totally different thing, it has been designed to intercept aircraft and medium range ballistic missiles, neither go nearly as fast as long range missiles.

The strategic missile defense system has the problem that the intercept is happening at a speed of more than mach 15 at least. Getting the intercepter close enough to the incoming warhead is quite a job to do when the target and interceptor appraoch each other at more than 4km per second, on top of that even the very thin atmosphere in the interception altitude heats up the sensors.

Now put on top of that a maneuvering warhead, modern missiles do not necessarily have the courtesy of travelling purely ballistic.

So much for the technical problems. The whole project is just a waste of tax money, a pet project to feed the buddies of the Bush family.

And about ungrateful Europeans: There is no such thread we need to be protected against, on the contrary, the whole thing is fucking up the good realtions with Russia.

So you've given me your expert military assessment of the missile intercept challenges, which is completely irrelevant to my point. (while challenging, the system can work, not that Russia couldn't spoof it.) And confirmed that the missile intercepters are provocative to Russia, which I've already said twice. So what do you think Mr. Obama should do now? Cave in to the Russian threat and kill the project (something he may have considered doing anyway), or stand his ground?

I also agree its mostly a waste of tax dollars. It won't stop a Russian missile attack, and Iran or NK would just place a nuke in a shipping container for delivery. Any rogue missile strike would welcome immediate nuclear counter-strike.

Scrapping the project would be the sensical step. This has nothing to do with caving in to the Russians, it has to do with a rational decision.

But again this argument will be lost on you, since it does not fit your concept of the world with Russia being among the bad guys who need to be dealt with in a rough way.

HD - Has the US ever made a move in geo-politics that could be considered a mistake, and if it is a mistake why can't we admit it as such, and earn some political capitol by being honest about the error, and move forward where diplomacy is a better tool.

Bombing is the worst form of politics, and money is REAL power. We would be better off using what capital we have to rebuild our economy. The only reason the US had power from the 30's to about the late 70's was wealth, and a huge manufacturing base, but since Regan we have been rocketing to the poorhouse, with the exception of the Clinton years.

Money is the power of intellect, and weapons are the power of ignorance.

Amen Pods!

"Bombing is the worst form of politics, and money is REAL power.
Money is the power of intellect, and weapons are the power of ignorance."

Interesting observation, but I only agree with you so far. While I agree economics has historically been one of America's most potent soft power weapons, and even now in Iraq, I don't think money did Poland or Czechoslavakia much good in 1939. Money is a powerful thing, one of its best uses being to buy powerful weapons and a well trained military, just in case the enemy falls into your ignorance category. Military power is just one more of several forms of power, but it should not be considered obsolete or unneccesary. There are probably many nations / civilizations now conquered, guilty of thinking money alone (tribute, etc) would protect them.

Look at Kuwait against Iraq in 91. Money didn't hold back the hordes of ignorant invaders then. To imply money can stop all opponents, implies that all your opponents have a certain level of civilization and play by international rules, which is not always the case. Sometimes those ignorant invaders would prefer to just invade you and take your money.

Anyway, as you say we're rocketing to the poorhouse. (I hope you're wrong) But if our money goes away, our advanced weapons may be our only defense.

I also thought Turkey seemed like a more reasonable location, but Russia would consider this a threat as well. Maybe Bush doubted the long term stability of Turkey? I do know missiles are far easier to shoot down near the source as they accelerate against gravity, than over the target when they've accelerated to ridiculous speeds.

As for the missile defense site in Poland, it may have been a mistake. If so, it should be cancelled. Like I said, shame on Russia for not giving Obama an easy face-saving way to simply drop it. Maybe they already knew Obama planned to cancel it, and wanted to embarass him?

Yes, anyone suspicious should be preemptively bombed.

I read today that Obama did already talk with Medwedew, my guess is you are in for another surprise.

"Yes, anyone suspicious should be preemptively bombed."

Not at all what I said, but thanks for your ignorance. I said nations need a strong military for defense from uncivilized nations, of which there are many.

uncivilized - that from the nation that brought us McDonalds.

This is exactly the mindset that is the problem with the USA. Your nation is not even 250 years old and has invaded a couple souvereign nations without being attacked. In the Iraq US troops have damaged ruins of cities up to 6000 years old when setting up camps with heavy machinery. Civilized?

I don't know how HD keeps from pulling his hair out in frustration. Posters consistently misinterpret or ignore the points he is trying to make. Ok, if you want to discuss (or argue) a topic, the best way to do that is to take a deep breath...READ WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING SAID...without bias or assumptions. After you understand the message, THEN allow your bias to direct your response.
Replying with just insults and changing topic is just stupid.
Remember...fighting on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. It doesn't really matter who wins or loses...you're still retarded.

"Remember...fighting on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. It doesn't really matter who wins or loses...you're still retarded."

Excellent point psytoxic! But I still want to win the gold medal in the special olympics.