The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-27-2012, 04:15 AM   #1
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
Well Adak? What's your position on all the secret money bankrolling Romney?
Both candidates have secret money behind them. You know those "Obama mobile phones" that are going out to Obama supporters?

Those were financed by Carlos Slim - who's the worlds richest man, and not even an American.

So no, Romney's money sources don't bother me any more than Obama's.

To be honest, these big $$$ men, REALLY like having some association with those in the White House. Even if it's just to visit and share a drink, maybe a dinner, and a chat with the President - they LOVE it. It gives them a great deal of pleasure.

But the President has constraints. He can't cater to their needs too much, even if he wanted to, because he's such a major figure that everything he does is watched and reported (nowadays).
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:15 PM   #2
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
regarding secret money

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
Both candidates have secret money behind them. You know those "Obama mobile phones" that are going out to Obama supporters?

Those were financed by Carlos Slim - who's the worlds richest man, and not even an American.

So no, Romney's money sources don't bother me any more than Obama's.

To be honest, these big $$$ men, REALLY like having some association with those in the White House. Even if it's just to visit and share a drink, maybe a dinner, and a chat with the President - they LOVE it. It gives them a great deal of pleasure.

But the President has constraints. He can't cater to their needs too much, even if he wanted to, because he's such a major figure that everything he does is watched and reported (nowadays).
Yes, both do have secret money in their campaign. That is troubling. Both have foreign money supporting them, also troubling and illegal to boot. But the relative amounts are not balanced, much, much more untraceable money is being devoted to Romney's campaign. They're both wrong, but Romney's got a huge lead on this score.

Cite.

Quote:
Most of the foreign-connected PACs put their money on Republicans. They sent $7.5 million to Republicans and $5.3 million to Democrats. This diverges sharply with a recent Gallup International poll, which found that the world favors Obama by 81 percent.

The local subsidiary of Singapore’s largest container shipping company, Neptune Orient, gave $6,000 to Democrats and $29,000 to Republicans. An exception is Japan’s Sony Entertainment, which gave $98,000 to Democrats and $72,000 to Republicans.

Few of the foreign-connected, corporate PACs made direct donations to Mitt Romney (Obama does not accept PAC money). However, another potential route for corporations to influence elections is to encourage their US employees and their relatives to do so. Credit Suisse, the financial giant, gave zero to Romney through its US corporate PAC. But the company’s employees and relatives gave $554,000 to Romney through hundreds of small donations. Credit Suisse employees gave $38,500 to Obama, according to data analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Cite.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.

Last edited by BigV; 10-27-2012 at 08:24 PM.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 06:03 AM   #3
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
You know, I've been thinking about this thread and the 'True Conservative' thread, and I think I should retract an element of what I have said in here:

For ease, I've been using the labels 'conservative' and 'republican'. But actually the views expressed by Adak in this thread, though in line with much of what we see of republicanism/conservatism through news and political commentary, doesn't seem so in line with mainstream conservative views. Certainly judging from other conservative dwellars.

I probably should withdraw the labels 'conservative' and 'republican' and replace them with extreme republican, or right-wing conservative. I suspect they are no closer to many ordinary conservative or republican Americans, than the Socialist Workers' Party is to me.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 07:11 AM   #4
ZenGum
Doctor Wtf
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
Carrier? I didn't even lift her!


Name:  carriers-2011.gif
Views: 269
Size:  105.1 KB

Just saying.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008.
Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.
ZenGum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:48 AM   #5
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Quote:
=ZenGum;835994

Just saying.
China's single crappy carrier isn't depicted either. The point still stands that we are insanely over-committed to our Navy. Romney's ideas in this department make no sense whatsoever. This is one area where Romney seems like he's had a consistent position, so we can maybe believe he will throw Eisenhower under the bus.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 09:02 AM   #6
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Why does Thailand need a carrier ?

My first thought was it must be scrap iron from the our Reagan years.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 02:12 PM   #7
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
Why does Thailand need a carrier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia, Royal Thai Armed Forces
Thai–Laotian Border War (1987–1988)
The war was a small conflict over the territories surrounding three villages between the Sainyabuli Province in Laos and Phitsanulok Province in Thailand. The war ended with a Laotian victory, and return to status quo ante bellum. No settlement was made the two nations suffered a combined casualty of about 1,000.
East Timor (1999–2002)
After the East Timor Crisis, Thailand together with 28 other nations provided the International Force for East Timor or INTERFET. Thailand also provided the Force Commander in Lieutenant General Winai Phattiyakul.[7] The force was based in Dili and lasted from 25 October 1999 to 20 May 2002.

Iraq War (2003–2004)
After the successful U.S. invasion of Iraq, Thailand contributed 423 troops in August 2003 to nation building and medical assistance in post-Sadam Iraq. The forces mostly from the Royal Thai Army was attacked in the 2003 Karbala bombings, killing 2 Thai soldiers and wounding 5 others. The Thai mission in Iraq was considered successful and the forces withdrew in August 2004. This mission is considered the main reason the United States decided to designate Thailand as a Major non-NATO ally in 2003.

Southern Insurgency (2004–ongoing)
The ongoing Southern Insurgency began long before 2004, waged by the ethnic Malays and Islamic rebels in the three southern provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat. The Insurgency intensified in 2004, when terrorist attacks on ethnic Thai civilians from the insurgents escalated. The Royal Thai Armed Forces in turn responded with heavy armed tactics. The casualties currently stands at 155 Thai military personnel killed against 1,600 insurgents killed and about 1,500 captured, over the backdrop of about 2,729 civilian casualties. Currently there is a plan by the Royal Thai Government to hand over responsibility of the conflict to a civilian body, a move the military does not favour.

Cambodian–Thai border stand-off (2008-ongoing)
They seem pretty militarily active lately compared to some places.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 07:13 AM   #8
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Umm, thought we went down to 1 carrier in 2011?
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 07:29 AM   #9
ZenGum
Doctor Wtf
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
Uhhh .. pic was on a page dated 2011 ... I saw it "somewhere" a few days ago and dug it up.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008.
Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.
ZenGum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 07:40 AM   #10
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
I suppose it depends also on whether or not you define the Invincible class as a true aircraft carrier. I think we still have one in service.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 03:11 PM   #11
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Yehbut, being militarily active and needing an aircraft carrier aren't the same thing.

I was a little surprised they needed one. Not because I think they don't have any military engagements going on, just that I didn't think they went far enough afield to need carriers.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 03:14 PM   #12
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
For a coastal nation, with as much coastline and as many islands as Thailand, and military concerns across the southern pacific... hell, if they can find the budget for it, i can imagine it'd be totally useful and great to have.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 03:16 PM   #13
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Yeah. Once I started thinking about it, it did make sense :p
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 03:24 PM   #14
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
it's just down to cost priorities. If the Thais think they'd rather have a carrier than... however many smaller boats, or airfields, or whatever, that they could buy/maintain for the same price, I'm SURE they'd put it to good use.

Hell, I bet Mongolia would buy an aircraft carrier if they figured out how to afford it. Why WOULDN'T you want a carrier if you could afford it?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 06:52 PM   #15
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Is Adak still posting Tea Party propaganda about a smallest US military since 1887?
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.