Which of these 2 scenarios are scariest? - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

sq764 · 10-10-2004, 07:16 PM

1) Bush gets elected on Nov 2nd, then a month later, he gets assasinated and Dick Cheney becomes president.

2) Kerry gets elected on Nov 2nd, then a month later, he gets assasinated and John Edwards becomes president.

Not sure about everyone here, but #2 scares the living shit out of me............

Tee · 10-10-2004, 07:27 PM

Ya really want to know what is the scariest?

What goes on in your head to post such a thing!!

sq764 · 10-10-2004, 08:14 PM

Tee, maybe you can explain why we even have vice presidents in the first place...

I am not quite sure what your issue is..

Dave Schwartz · 10-10-2004, 10:02 PM

Actually, it is not a bad question to ask and should be considered when electing a president.

Here are a couple more questions for you...

1. Who's in charge?
My wife and I saw a bumper sticker today that said something like "Wouldn't it be funny if we had all the money we needed for schools and the Air Force had to have bake sales to buy bombers?"

Okay, so here is the question to think about...

"If we scale back on the military (as the left seems to think we should) to the point where we are no longer the dominant world power, who would be the number one power in the world?"

(I am assuming that your answer to this question would have to be China or Russia.)

2. How do you really like that alternative?
Seriously, ask yourself how the world would be if China was the most powerful nation on earth. You think we're bullies? How do you like your rice, steamed or fried?

November is getting closer.

Think about it.

Please.

In deadly earnest,
Dave Schwartz

sq764 · 10-10-2004, 10:24 PM

You mean we can't fight a 'more sensitive' war???

Zaf · 10-10-2004, 10:51 PM

SQ, That is scary Sh*t.

ZAFONIC

boxcar · 10-10-2004, 10:55 PM

Dave Schwartz wrote:

Here are a couple more questions for you...

1. Who's in charge?
My wife and I saw a bumper sticker today that said something like "Wouldn't it be funny if we had all the money we needed for schools and the Air Force had to have bake sales to buy bombers?"

Okay, so here is the question to think about...

"If we scale back on the military (as the left seems to think we should) to the point where we are no longer the dominant world power, who would be the number one power in the world?"

(I am assuming that your answer to this question would have to be China or Russia.)

The U.S. is the only superpower in the world. We have all the nukes we need, the weapons systems and the technology to deliver at any time and any place. And, of course, to the chagrin of much of the world, we will in the forseeable future have our anti-missle technology up and running full tilt. We will soon have the capability of obliterating any country at any time, while keeping our losses to a minimum, if we were to go head-to-head, for example with a Russia or China. This is one of the reasons why we're so hated and envied around the world by many nations. Most dictators and autocrats fear us, and I, for one, am glad they do. Fear in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, rational fear is quite healthy and helps keep people who possess same alive and kicking in many different contexts.

In addition to being the most powerful nation in the world, we are also the [/b]wealthiest[/b]. Most people in the world want what we have, yet...don't have the first clue of how to obtain wealth. Most governments in the world are so corrupt and so evil that they make our own very flawed political system seem angelic or saintly by comparison! And to exacerbate the problem, these wicked political powers really don't want their people to attain to the financial level we have as a people. Most governments want to keep the masses ignorant and poor, for in the context of this kind of social environment the people are easier to control.

In conclusion, it's not the U.S. that is wrong with the world as Libs would have us believe; it's the balance of the nations, generally, that are the blame for their own predictaments.

2. How do you really like that alternative?
Seriously, ask yourself how the world would be if China was the most powerful nation on earth. You think we're bullies? How do you like your rice, steamed or fried[/b]?

China is already very scary. The humongous demands China is putting upon the world's resources are largely responsible for a generallyl sluggish global economy. It's humorous to listen to Libs blame our "gas guzzlin' "SUVs
for the price of gasoline today at the pump, while simultaneously burying their heads in the sand totally ignoring China's voracious appetite for global resources.

Thanks, Dave, for giving me an opportunity to vent.

Boxcar

Secretariat · 10-10-2004, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Actually, it is not a bad question to ask and should be considered when electing a president.

Here are a couple more questions for you...

1. Who's in charge?
My wife and I saw a bumper sticker today that said something like "Wouldn't it be funny if we had all the money we needed for schools and the Air Force had to have bake sales to buy bombers?"

Okay, so here is the question to think about...

"If we scale back on the military (as the left seems to think we should) to the point where we are no longer the dominant world power, who would be the number one power in the world?"

(I am assuming that your answer to this question would have to be China or Russia.)

2. How do you really like that alternative?
Seriously, ask yourself how the world would be if China was the most powerful nation on earth. You think we're bullies? How do you like your rice, steamed or fried?

November is getting closer.

Think about it.

Please.

In deadly earnest,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,

Your question is interesting. Right now our focus is on being the pre-dominant military power in the world, and with our nuclear weapons we will always be in terms of national threats, but in terms of terrorism, that is where the problem lies bvecause we're dealing with guerilla groups unattached to any specific regime. We can have the largest military budget in the wrold and still have difficulty fighting that type fo scenario. The question is will we bankrupt our nation because of our fear of other nations or terorism, and adapt a roman type of mindset so in fear losing our nation that we spend ourselves to death at the expense fo enrything else? I think that is the point the lady is making, albeit a bit naively.

As to the second question, beleive it or not we are slowing cediing our economic dependence to China. We borrow money from , they don't borrow from us. Look at just about everything you purchase and you'll see a Made in China sticker attached to it. We're giving them our manufacturing jobs, borrowing from them to prop up our deficit so we have enough money to pay the troops, and are now in an active bidding war with them over oil.

It will be rough if they ever do invade Taiwan for us to address this.

sq764 · 10-10-2004, 11:50 PM

I am going to be dead honest here....

If you asked me to vote one person of these 4 as the president: Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Edwards...

Cheney is my man..

I mean he is intelligent, composed, strong and he almost pulled off one of the biggest comebacks ever with Ford...

Tee · 10-11-2004, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sq764
Tee, maybe you can explain why we even have vice presidents in the first place...

I am not quite sure what your issue is..

I am familiar with U.S History & Presidential Succession, the 20th & 25th amendments.

Perhaps u should explain why we have vice presidents. Seems to be an issue for u.

The scenario in which u have based your thread upon is rather far fetched probability wise - not out of the realm of possiblity, just not likely.

Seems a bit morbid to me in the 1st place.

Cheney is my man as well - I know the way he works very well. Hope his pump holds out if God forbid he does have to take over the Presidency.

Perhaps u would like to take a shot with the Speaker of the House?

sq764 · 10-11-2004, 01:09 AM

A president getting assasinated is far fetched?

Within the past 40 years, we have had one pres assasinated and one almost assasinated..

But if you say so...

Tee · 10-11-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sq764
A president getting assasinated is far fetched?

Within the past 40 years, we have had one pres assasinated and one almost assasinated..

But if you say so...

Yes a president getting assasinated is far fetched. Go do your history homework & tell me how many presidents have been killed in office & how many attempts there have been on the presidents life? Not in the past 40 years, but in the entire history of the presidency.

Now if u would have went with a theme of dying in office(not being killed), resigning, impeachment, losing ability to perform duty as president etc - all very more plausible I would have agreed with you & taken a different approach in response.

ljb · 10-11-2004, 07:57 AM

And the scariest of all would be:
Bush wins the election and Cheney dies of a heart attack.

We spend something like 500 times the amount being spent by the rest of the world on defense. Doesn't this seem like overkill?

sq764 · 10-11-2004, 08:45 AM

Tee, it's reality my man, introduce yourself to it...

Wonder if anyone thought about this before Kennedy... Oh wait he couldn't have been assasinated, that's far-fetched..

Out of the past 9 presidents, 1 assasinated, 1 other shot at but lived..

I guess we have to be up around the 90th percentile for you to think it's not far-fetched.. get a clue.

boxcar · 10-11-2004, 10:39 AM

ljb laments with:

We spend something like 500 times the amount being spent by the rest of the world on defense. Doesn't this seem like overkill?

500 times is a huge stretch. But...yes, we do spend more on defense than any other nation. The first reason for this is that it's not because other nations wouldn't want to spend that if they could...but their economies are so far inferior to ours that they simply can't afford the tab. (For example, LJB, why don't you move to Chirac Country where unemployment over there is well over 15%. Then 5 years later come back here and remind us how bad a 5.4% unemployment rate was back in 2004. Let's hear it for Socialism!)

Secondly, because the U.S. is King of the Hill and the envy of the world, and just about every political leader in the world wants what we have, it's prudent to spend much to protect what have, most especially our freedom (albeit such as it is now, but even so...it's a lot more than most nations have). I mean you know how this works, right? Wealthy individuals, for example, spend large sums of money on security to protect their possessions...far more than poor folks, since this latter class doesn't have much to protect to begin with. Got it now?????

Thirdly, we have a president, who unlike Carter, doesn't think there's a two-bit dictator in the world he can't make nice to.

It's all so elementary...except of course to the mentally challenged.

Boxcar