The campaign still has just more than $169 million on hand as of Oct. 17, which is a big war chest for the final few weeks of the campaign and enough to really flood the airwaves with ads now through Nov. 6.
We already have drone planes and missiles, so tanks and helicopters would not be a problem. They have robot machine guns, cameras, and mine detectors that also detonate the mines they find. From what is out there on the net, and this would be the stuff thats NOT classified mind you, they must have much better and far more advanced robot soldiers they don't want to be seen yet.
I had 1000 doctors that can't explain why I survived and all the others but for 1 died! He was crippled and in the hospital for 6 months, I was out in 88 days after Docs said I would be in for at least 2 years. I know because I lived it that doctors don't always get it right. So stop being down and start looking at things differently. It's not how many days you get, it's what you do with the days you get that really matters.
Most of these are funny but 2 look as if they could be really nasty. Look at the 1 with the 2 BIG swords 1 attached to each the forearm and the 1 with the giant spear that has like a huge sword type end on it. These are 15 to 30 feet tall!!
Lastly - the very fact that you grew up with a father who was a banker is EXACTLY why you cannot conceive why the world is not always about money. It is also why you cannot understand that a government endeavour can make money flow within the community and in private enterprise (both large and small) without actually returning a profit in itself.
Like it or not the fact is simple EVERYTHING has a cost, and for jobs that equals money. "IF" any Gov could do as you say why does EVERY gov spend so much? Why is almost every Gov in deep financial trouble? The Govs say they are working to make jobs! They do a REALLY crappy job of that, but who said they were intelligent?
YOU said dams, not me, so I covered energy as thats why the dams were built. Just because you choose not to believe the geologists about the dams is not my problem.
Like O did in "green" energy? OMG look at all the failures that went bankrupt in few months later. Evergreen Solar ($24 million)* SpectraWatt ($500,000)* Solyndra ($535 million)* Beacon Power ($69 million)* AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million) Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) SunPower ($1.5 billion) First Solar ($1.46 billion) Babcock and Brown ($178 million) EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)* Amonix ($5.9 million) National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million) Fisker Automotive ($528 million) Abound Solar ($374 million)* A123 Systems ($279 million)* Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million) Johnson Controls ($299 million) Schneider Electric ($86 million) Brightsource ($1.6 billion) ECOtality ($126.2 million) Raser Technologies ($33 million)* Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)* Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)* Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)* Range Fuels ($80 million)* Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)* Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)* LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)* UniSolar ($100 million)* Azure Dynamics ($120 million)* GreenVolts ($500,000) Vestas ($50 million) LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million) Nordic Windpower ($16 million)* Navistar ($10 million) Satcon ($3 million)* Businessmen are far better at picking what biz to invest in than Gov by far. Other peoples money gets wasted too often and investing your own money makes you do more research and find companies worth investing into.
NO WAY! If O does he goes to jail! Each document O signed saying he is legal to be the Pres carries a 5 year FED prison term and a $250,000 fine. Just add up all those documents and they include his BC and military card also. O would never again see the light of day!!
The airforce had a laser on a plane that shot down missles years ago. Power for a high power laser on a plane was a big problem, and so only had a few shots at best. Ships have power to spare.
Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, chief of the Office of Naval Research, tells Wired that they have pushed up the timetable from four years to two to install laser weapons on board ships.
“We’re well past physics,” Klunder told the magazine. “We’re just going through the integration efforts. Hopefully, that tells you we’re well mature, and we’re ready to put these on naval ships.”
Klunder added that tests have been “very successful,” telling Wired that lasers were recently able to shoot down drones.
The whole world is going through a world wide money reset. We are leaving the fiat money system and returning to a "gold standard". Now where the money was once backed by gold, this time the money value will be set according a countries worth. Done by gold, silver, agriculture, oil, gas, minerals, manufacturing, ect.
Iran has played footsy with the UN for years about this, you think Iran will do any different with O? It's at best a stall tactic for Iran while using O's weakness against us all.
(LONDON GUARDIAN) President Obama has said the Iranian nuclear crisis could be resolved by bilateral negotiations between Washington and Tehran.
In the course of the last of three presidential debates – which chiefly served to underline the striking similarities in the foreign policies of the president and his challenger, Mitt Romney – Obama appeared to open a new route towards a negotiated settlement to the worsening impasse over Iran‘s nuclear programme.
THE WND STORY THAT STARTED IT ALL: Obama cuts deal with Iran over nukes
For the past few years, talks with Iran have been handled by a group of six major powers: the five permanent members of the security council together with Germany. The US has had occasional meetings with Iranian officials alongside multilateral talks but the Iranians, hamstrung by deep internal divisions in Tehran, have shied away from such public encounters over the past three years.
Latest Iranian claim: Obama WH assured us of our nuclear rights
Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted US President Barack Obama as acknowledging Iran’s nuclear rights.
Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Livia Leu Agosti attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from the US president to Tehran leaders.
Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi told FNA that during the meeting, Agosti had told the Iranian officials that President Barack Obama recognizes Iran’s right of access and use of the nuclear technology.
“There are a couple of points with regard to this (US) message (to Iran),” Ebrahimi said and added, “Firstly, during the session to submit the message, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran quoted the US president as saying that ‘we (the US) recognize your nuclear rights’.”
As regards the second issue, the lawmaker said that the Swiss diplomat had also quoted Obama as saying that “I didn’t want to impose sanctions on your central bank but I had no options but to approve it since a Congress majority had approved the decision.”
Why even debate Dude? His opinions are completely irrelevant, Dude is in Denmark! He's not an American and as such he's not going to vote, or have ANY say what so ever in the out come of our elections here.
Tenth question, whether we should "divorce" Pakistan. Romney is called to answer first, yet again. The fourth question in a row where O gets the last word, another moderating failure. Romney says we should not and cannot divorce Pakistan. Schieffer does'nt ask O to answer the tenth question, but moves on to an eleventh, asking Romney whether he approves the use of drones. Romney gives a straightforward answer, he approves of the use of drones but we need to look at the bigger picture, whether the U.S. is achieving its broader goals in countering Iran, pushing Al Qaeda "on its heels," and encouraging peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. O's answer is America should be proud of having stood up for democracy. But he adds an awkward declaration: "This nation--me--I stood up,". It looked and sounded odd, not Presidential. Romneys much more successful describing a foreign policy in need of change. Both candidates are asked what the greatest threat to America is. O says China, and talks about how he has fought for American industry, adding the by-now-customary attack on Romney's position, saying that Romney's budget and policies are weak. Romney, addressing O directly, says that the real threat is a nuclear Iran--and then returns to the issue of China. He argues that China sees the U.S. growing weaker because of the administration's policies, citing Secretary of Defense Panetta describing the upcoming defense cuts as "devastating." Romney pledges to label China a currency manipulator on "day one," and to act against Chinese intellectual property theft, enforcing a free trade that requires playing by the rules. Schieffer follows up with Romney by saying that "some people" would say his policies would ignite a trade war. Romney answers really well, saying a) China doesn't want a trade war, and b) it is already winning a silent trade war, using the trade balance between our two countries. O counters poorly attacking Romney, for investing in "companies that ship jobs overseas." He brings up the auto bailout, again, saying that if Romney had his way we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling them to China (a failed distortion IMO). Romney counters on the auto industry, talking about his roots in Detroit, explaining his opposition to the bailout. Which, he points out, was a Bush policy. O interrupts over and over again( look smug and glowering on the split screen) "I'm still speaking," Romney says, at least twice, and O sees he has overstepped a boundary. Romney turns directly to O and talks about how his policies of intervention are failing. O accuses Romney of distorting his past position and Romney, now, interrupts for the first time this evening: "You're wrong." He says it with conviction, and O looks less certain. O's attempt to channel Crazy Joe seems to have strengthened Romney. Romney answers--Schieffer has, finally, let him answer last--countering O's statement that "we don't want to go back to the past" by agreeing, saying that "the past" are the four years of Obama's term. Romney talks about the hardships of the last four years--and O looks directly at him, alternately glowering and smirking. (O thinks he's winning, he doesn't knows how strange it looks on television.) This was Romney's best round! O damaged himself by interrupting again and again and being so rude. Closing statements, O has the first opportunity. He points at the camera, warns about going back to the policies of the past, and talks again about "nation-building at home." It sounds planned and boilerplate, plus too stern. Romney begins: "I'm optimistic about our future." Unlike O, he touches on foreign policy, smiling at the camera. He ends on a note of bipartisanship. "We're going to need a president who can work across the aisle"--and cites his record in Massachusetts. He ends by describing the task ahead as one of completing the work of prior generations. A more optimistic more Presidential closing statement by far.
Romney's response criticizes "O administration" for "weakness, where they expected to find American strength." Romney brings up O's record of weakness, going back to O's commitment in 2008 to meet enemy leaders without preconditions, tracing O's policies to the present, including the O administration's attempt to create (but not acknowledge) "daylight" between the U.S. and Israel. Romney calls for a policy of greater pressure. O says "nothing" Romney says is true, and tries to defend against the "preconditions" claim by citing fact-checkers. (However, its true.) He goes after Romney for allegedly investing in a Chinese state oil company with dealings with Iran. And he says that he was "very clear" about Iran's "murderous" actions. (Which, of course, was not.) O closes by saying he will not allow Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon. Romney responds by saying that the administration has given Iran four more years to move closer to a nuclear weapon--and adds that O's "apology" tour visited everyone except Israel, and that our enemies noticed. O's irritated talking about his visit to Israel as a candidate, including Yad Vashem (which he makes a show of explaining to Romney is the Holocaust museum). O ends by posing the question as which candidate is going to be be more credible as a leader, and who will "stand on the right side of history." O gets 3 chances to speak; Romney only two, but Romneys more forceful and eloquent. The eighth question is about a hypothetical situation involving bombers in the air. Romney rejects the hypothetical and talks about how the U.S. is now weaker throughout the world. Obama responds by accusing Romney of having inconsistent positions, and suggesting that he would not have gone after Osama bin Laden. Romney asks for a chance to respond, and Schieffer rejects it. Again, again, again with lib bias at play. The ninth question is about Afghanistan, and Romney answers first, talking about how he wants to bring American troops home but wants to ensure that Pakistan does not become a failed state. (Again--for the fourth time this evening, I believe--Romney stresses areas of agreement with Obama.) Obama talks about his record, and paints a broad picture about why he sent additional troops to Afghanistan in the first place. This is a wise move, because it takes the focus off a troubled withdrawal that Obama calls "pulling out responsibly." Obama, once again, turns the conversation towards "nation-building" at home, focusing on veterans coming back from war and looking for work, and mentioning the First Lady. An excellent answer.
Schieffer starts to direct questions at Romney that are specific to Romney--and here, in the fifth question, he asks Romney how he would pay for increased defense spending. Romney defends his budget--but Schieffer interrupts several times. This question is a setup for Obama to attack Romney and is typical of the behavior from Candy Crowley but Schieffers more subtle. Romney counters Obama by talking about his experience balancing budgets in business and in government. He turns the discussion back to military budgets--and Schieffer seems to want to stop him from doing so, despite complaining earlier that the debate had wandered off foreign policy. Romney unloads a well-rehearsed argument about the dangers of pending cuts to the armed forces. Obama tries to evade responsibility for the sequester, saying that "it's something Congress has proposed"--but, of course, he signed it. Obama says that Romney hasn't studied the military, and offers condescending (but in his mind, no doubt, effective) put-downs about how this isn't a game of Battleship and we don't have bayonets anymore, either. The sixth question is on Israel, Iran, and red lines. Obama talks about the importance of the alliance with Israel, and claims he united the world against Iran. He adds an attack on Romney's policy, a straw-man version, suggesting Romney would embark on "premature" military action. Romney's response is comprehensive, calling not only for economic sanctions but for indicting the Iranian regime for genocide. He adds military response "is the last resort." The seventh question, follows-up the sixth, is about what a "deal" with Iran would look like. Obama starts off by denying reports of a deal for talks with Iran in the New York Times, then states that a deal would involve Iran giving up its nuclear program (this is not, in fact, Obama's actual position). Obama again attacks Romney: "You'd do the same things we did, but say them louder." Romneys not taking the bait, and looking back on the first half of the debate, its clear that he has made a strategic choice to play it safe and solid.
factsrknown Forum Posts (61)
RE: What did u learn from these threads and from this site?
Learned????