Am I the only one who finds it absolutely fascinating that countries are (nearly 60 years later) still trying to make a nuclear weapon?..and having trouble doing so at that…
Where the US did it an an era of less technology, resources, and basicaly on a time constraint.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Obama just knocked it out of the park on military spending. [/quote]
True, but he fucked up when he admits that military spending went up in the past 4 years, so how is he better than Romney in this regard ?[/quote]
Where the spending is placed and how much more.
What’s with the little pink bracelet Obama has on his right wrist?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Obama just knocked it out of the park on military spending. [/quote]
If your talking about the part I’m seeing now… That isn’t a homerun. He interrupted to ramble and attack.
But, maybe I’m wrong.
EDIT: but on the whole both these guys agree on most of this shit, lol.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Obama just knocked it out of the park on military spending. [/quote]
True, but he fucked up when he admits that military spending went up in the past 4 years, so how is he better than Romney in this regard ?[/quote]
Where the spending is placed and how much more. [/quote]
Yes but the American public would have no clue between buying an aircraft carrier or a bomber.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
What’s with the little pink bracelet Obama has on his right wrist?[/quote]
Breast cancer
Ok.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
What’s with the little pink bracelet Obama has on his right wrist?[/quote]
Pandering for the women’s vote.
So far, a pretty dull debate. There just isn’t massive disagreement between the two (which is not surprising), and they just want to hit stump speeches. All of which is fine, but no slam dunk for either candidate.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Obama just knocked it out of the park on military spending. [/quote]
If your talking about the part I’m seeing now… That isn’t a homerun. He interrupted to ramble and attack.
But, maybe I’m wrong.
EDIT: but on the whole both these guys agree on most of this shit, lol.[/quote]
The part including horses and bayonets?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So far, a pretty dull debate. There just isn’t massive disagreement between the two (which is not surprising), and they just want to hit stump speeches. All of which is fine, but no slam dunk for either candidate.[/quote]
This, and it is annoyingly dull.
I would rather go stand in line at the DMV than watch this shit, I think molasses dripping out of a tree would be more entertaining.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This, and it is annoyingly dull.[/quote]
One thing - the dullness is not good for Obama. Foreign policy was supposed to be his ace card (even as it is being de-prioritized this election in favor of domestic issues), but he hasn’t disntiguished himself.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Obama just knocked it out of the park on military spending. [/quote]
If your talking about the part I’m seeing now… That isn’t a homerun. He interrupted to ramble and attack.
But, maybe I’m wrong.
EDIT: but on the whole both these guys agree on most of this shit, lol.[/quote]
The part including horses and bayonets?[/quote]
Yeah, that is condescending, childish joke, not a homerun to anyone other than fanboys.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah, that is condescending, childish joke, not a homerun to anyone other than fanboys.[/quote]
Agreed. Since the birth of the republic, and especially since the turn of the 20th century, no candidate ever wants to be on the side of not robustly supporting naval supremacy. That was not a helpful exchange for Obama, except among the hipster vote.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Am I the only one who finds it absolutely fascinating that countries are (nearly 60 years later) still trying to make a nuclear weapon?..and having trouble doing so at that…
Where the US did it an an era of less technology, resources, and basicaly on a time constraint.[/quote]
Just speculating:
Maybe there are certain tricks to it that are not widely known, that the US happened to discover in 1945?
Or maybe the hard thing in 2012 is not making a nuclear weapon; maybe the hard thing is making it in such a way that nobody can really be sure that is what you are doing until you are just about finished?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah, that is condescending, childish joke, not a homerun to anyone other than fanboys.[/quote]
Agreed. Since the birth of the republic, and especially since the turn of the 20th century, no candidate ever wants to be on the side of not robustly supporting naval supremacy. That was not a helpful exchange for Obama, except among the hipster vote.
[/quote]
And now we’re in the 21st century and we need more special forces and other types including as Obama said submarines and aircraft carriers.
Obama Bin Laden, LOL.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah, that is condescending, childish joke, not a homerun to anyone other than fanboys.[/quote]
Agreed. Since the birth of the republic, and especially since the turn of the 20th century, no candidate ever wants to be on the side of not robustly supporting naval supremacy. That was not a helpful exchange for Obama, except among the hipster vote.
[/quote]
Yup, twitter will blow up with #bayonets tomorrow, but it is a small thing. Jobs making ships is a big thing.
Agreed. Not really a compelling difference. It’s not like their very different approaches to the economy. Obama gets dems. Romney gets Repubs. A wash. The independents will decide based on jobs and the economy, not this. And yes, very dull.