-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 64 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
The Obama Watch
Inviting War Against America
That’s what our anti-nuke president is doing.
To get the money to win World War II, America ran unprecedented deficits and drove up the national debt to unprecedented levels. In 1943 alone, the federal government borrowed $54.5 billion, which was more than it had borrowed in all of its previous history before the war, combined. By 1946, Gross Federal Debt peaked at 122% of GDP, and net national debt held by the public peaked at 109% of GDP.
But according to the CBO, under President Obama’s budget, Gross Federal Debt will already be at 122% of GDP by 2020, without any world war. Net national debt held by the public will be at 90% of GDP. After 2020, it will all just get much worse on our current course.
So if we have to fight a major war at some point in the future, where would we get the money? Note that during World War II we raised taxes to unprecedented levels, and we still needed the above unprecedented borrowing. Note also that Greece’s national debt is at 113% of GDP, and the bond market is telling them no mas.
So if we find ourselves in another major war, would the bond markets allow us to do what we did during World War II, on top of what President Obama and Congressional Democrats are already doing with budget deficits and the national debt? In particular, would the Communist Chinese really lend us the money to fight the war by buying the bonds necessary to fund it? Would whoever we are fighting sit by with equanimity and just watch them provide us with the money? Or would they more likely ally with the Communist Chinese to cut us off? And what if we are at war with the Communist Chinese themselves, and their allies, which could include Iran and North Korea, if not Russia?
Suppose the war looks like this. Iran attacks Israel, China attacks Taiwan and Japan, North Korea attacks South Korea, and Russia attacks Ukraine and Poland. America gets the money from where to respond to this? The defense builddown Obama is pursuing is adequate to do what in response to this?
Okay, this is a scenario for World War III. Is it okay that we soon will not have the defense or the financial resources to fight World War III? Is that the goal of Barack Obama, George Soros, and their assorted leftist fellow travelers?
And once we reach this point, would we see World War III, or would our allies simply change allegiances, and throw in with our enemies? And how far would that go?
The Decline and Fall of America?
Everything President Obama is doing on national defense and foreign policy seems to be leading to this result. He has already canceled our planned missile defenses in Eastern Europe on the illogical premise that such purely defensive weapons somehow threaten Russia. In an editorial on April 9, Investors Business Daily adds:
Obama has already gutted U.S. missile defense, cancelling deployment of additional ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. He has also canceled ready-to-deploy missile defenses such as the Air Force’s Airborne Laser program, which destroys enemy missiles in their vulnerable boost phase.
President Obama has also terminated the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, the best fighter in the world by far, and a guarantor of continued American air superiority. Yet the Russians continue with the rollout of their own version.
Over the last few days, much of our national media have celebrated the signing of a new START arms control treaty with Russia. Just like President Obama, they missed the historical fact that the Cold War is over, and we won it without firing a shot (thanks to the brilliance of Obama’s nemesis, Ronald Reagan). This is no longer a bipolar world, and we face rising nuclear threats from other nations now, especially China. All this retro START hoopla just reflects, again, President Obama’s mental stagnation, stuck in the 1970s, and his weird, stubborn devotion to ignoring anything that has happened since 1980. Indeed, this Obama characteristic displayed throughout his domestic and foreign policies is so weird and so stubborn that it should be troubling to thinking people.
In this START treaty, America agrees to give up another 30% of its nuclear warheads. Moreover, we agree to steep reductions in the number of delivery vehicles, meaning intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers (like the B-2), to 800 overall. As the April 9 IBD further explains, “This also hurts our conventional deterrent…our bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are also delivery systems for the precision guided munitions that strike terror in our foes.” The Wall Street Journal added on March 31, “B-2 bombers are a useful instrument for global power projection and conventional weapons delivery, not only in nuclear conflict. In Congressional testimony last summer, Deputy Joint Chiefs Chairman General James Cartwright put 860 launchers as the bare minimum.” President Obama only made all of this worse with the unilateral retirement of the Tomahawk cruise missile, capable of delivering long-range nuclear or conventional explosives.
In return, the Russians give up nothing actually. The Russians barely have the resources to maintain the weapons the treaty allows, as the WSJ also explained on March 31, saying, “With much of its hardware obsolete and rusting, Russia already is at that level and tried to push the U.S. as low as 500 launchers.” Or, as the Heritage Foundation explained, in its April 12 Morning Bell, “Russia’s nuclear and conventional weapons arsenals are declining faster than ours, due to age and funding, so of course they want to bring our levels down to theirs.” The one area where the Russians do have a big advantage, tactical battlefield nukes, is not covered by the treaty, leaving Russia with an advantage of thousands of such nukes.
The Obama Administration insists that the treaty includes no constraints on America’s missile defense. But Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov says, “Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding,” pointing out treaty language in support. Lavrov adds, “Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if…the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces.” As IBD again explains, “This gives Russia a veto over the defense of the American people against nuclear attack.”
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (137) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/14/inviting-war-against-america
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 4.14.10 @ 6:25AM
"Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall..."
Son OfSam| 4.14.10 @ 12:06PM
so sorry this debt didn't come about "without a war". There has DEFINITELY been a war, the war against the middle class
THE RICH GET BAILOUTS
THE POOR GET HANDOUTS
THE MIDDLE CLASS PAYS FOR IT ALL
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
Scott| 4.14.10 @ 3:41PM
No, there have been 2 wars, and they are on-going. The cost of which approaches $2T. But yet we pretend like there hasn't been war for the last decade?
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:25PM
good point Scott....at the very least we never should have responded in Afghanistan.......in Dem speak: 9/11 was really our fault.
Athelstane| 4.16.10 @ 6:47PM
Soon and very soon, there will be a series of NBC attacks against this nation due entirely to the perceived weakness of these United States as fostered by this horror of a man and those who adhere to him.
Soon and very soon we will take Mr. Obama, his string pullers, and his minions out and stand them against a wall as befits all traitors.
That is my fervent prayer.
RobertS| 4.18.10 @ 10:29PM
Athelstane,
Remember, the doctor said "You must take your pills every day!" It will keep the nightmares at bay.
Big J| 4.14.10 @ 6:53AM
Unfortunately, the Man-Child residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. hasn't a clue what it means to defend America. He has spent his entire life in an ACLU cocoon, dreaming of rainbows and unicorns.
Regardless of how difficult it is to imagine, one has to think that the inevitable destruction of this country is his ultimate goal.
Forget about missing George Bush and Ronald Reagan - I am starting to miss Jimmah Cahtah!
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 10:42AM
Sorry guys,
I have not even read Mr. Ferrara's article yet...or any of your comments, save Big J's.
I wrote the below on another thread, but Hope each of you would see it, so I again shamelessly pasted it here again.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 10:19AM
In 1988, having sold my company, I wrote my first novel. I did almost an entire year of full time research. The research was very important to me for two reasons.
One, I had come into possession of the "Kearny Report", from Oakridge Labs, (The US Nuclear center), and discovered that nuclear war was not "unthinkable" at all, but in fact a very real possibility....and not the "end of history".
I wanted to inject that reality, with a lot of factual data from an unimpeachable source. (The report can even now be purchased at amazon.com.) I wanted to pass on the hard earned know-how so that my readers might have a chance to survive and re-build a free America after.
Second, I planned a five book series based upon a rebuilding of the country, with a lively adventure in doing so.
(Fortunately, the "wall" came down and the Soviet Union came apart before the second in the series was completed.)
In the course of my research, I learned more than I ever wanted to know about "nuclear strategy and tactics for "deterrence".
...The Obama administration has broken every "rule of thumb" that worked very well for over 60 years.
I must ask myself why.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 2:12PM
"Broken" I don't think so - modified, yes, because the bogeyman is not out there anymore in the Soviet garb. He has morphed into the single or small group terrorist for which loose nuclear material is his goal. By inking the Russian treaty, hundreds of tons of weapons grade nuclear material will be downgraded to safer, less explosive material, less attractive or useful to terrorists. Also, by doing so, Obama has enticed a number of countries to give up their nucs and nuclear material to secure it in safe storage. If the Russian threat is so small, and we have so much capability, why would anyone worry that we could reconstitute whatever level of nuclear force we needed in the future. Luckily, cooler heads are prevailing and the nucs are on the way out. Thanks to President Obama - and President Ronald Reagan who started it. Give them credit for making the world safer for us.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 2:24PM
Franklin,
President Reagan would have said to you..... " There you go again."
I truly hope you live in "fly-over" country.
Please ask mommie to move your basement...up-wind, of your wishes.
Dumbbunny.
scott| 4.14.10 @ 4:00PM
Ken, Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. Go do some reading on Reagan's views...it was his work that started what's continuing on through today. In fact it has never stopped. There is an entire DoD agency that does nothing but work on disarming nukes.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:30PM
yawn.
Reagan? you mean the same guy who promoted missile defense? (as the Russians are now while we do not) the same guy who argued that all options have to be maintained? the same guy..who...unlike Maobama...stated "trust but verify"?
night and day. cease with the revisionism.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:24PM
Great Reagan's Ghost - go read the man's book and shut up. We know this stance shatters your careful indoctrination with lies and deceit by the vast right-wing media, so it's hard, but you can do it... Get Ronald Reagan's own book and read it in his own words ... then look at Fixed News and reflect, "Hmmm are they lying to me? " "what else might they be lying about? " Reagan was dead set against nuclear weapons and he would applaud the progress of Liberal President Obama. Go look up what Nancy Reagan said as well, if you need a little softer landing ... Sorry to shatter your house of cards, but it's good for you.
Sam| 4.14.10 @ 9:39PM
Big J,
Please check back in when you know what you're talking about. Obama has reduced our nuclear arsenal to around 1000 nukes. How can that be seen as weakening us? THAT IS A S*** load of nukes. It only took two to break the backs of the Japanese and they were pretty fanatical in their own right.
Obama really isn't doing anything that radical. We still have an ENORMOUS nuclear arsenal. Do not let FoxNews dictate how you think.
KDW| 4.14.10 @ 10:26PM
Sam:
I think you missed one of the major points
the author was trying to make. It's not just that
Obama is reducing our nuclear deterrent to
1,550 warheads. He apparently has no intention
of maintaining, testing or modernizing our
nuclear forces which one day will lead to our
having no nuclear deterrent (all the while the
Russians are busy modernizing theirs). Everything
Obama has said and done leads to that conclusion.
How long do you think the United States would
survive in a world where Russia, China, Iran &
Pakistan are the worlds nuclear powers? Our
country would be destroyed.
Please, do not let CNN & MSNBC dictate how
you think.
Ret. Marine| 4.14.10 @ 7:02AM
This is troubling on so many levels I find it hard to wrap around my jarhead mentality that this usurper-n-theif of the American value system, is not hell-bent upon the destruction of this once great Nation of States called The United States of America. I still hold out for the senior members of that body called the Senate to make the right choice here and not radify this treaty. But, if they do, then they all should be re-called immediately and shown the door forever scorned as traitors.
The "won' is way over his head on this matter, the ruskies played him like a fine tuned fiddle and We the People know a con-job when we see it. If you don't fear for our survival by now, I'll just call you the same as I do this current admin., traitors....and let you prove me wrong.
I contend that anyone who has, over the course of 15 months, done as much damage to the economy, our defense, our moral, and well being as this common liar n-theif, you would be a plant and possibly put in this position by more powerful people than this current admin. is capable of handleing.
I pray daily I am wrong but, common sense tells this man this is being done with a purpose, to have control over the destruction of the most powerful Nation and our belief that God reigns supreme over our lands. Faith my friends, Faith.
Melvin| 4.14.10 @ 7:39AM
It simple. No one in any of the branches of government has the guts to stop and tell junior, NO!"
Now we have the wicked witch of the East gallivanting all over the damn world on the tax payers dime fulfilling her international mission, whatever the hell that means.
Brian Mc| 4.14.10 @ 7:39AM
Faith?
I am becoming more dissillusioned with each passing day, Ret. Marine. I would pack up the wagon and head west if it were possible to do so but there is nowhere to go to rid myself of this imbecilic socialist takeover. As Salieri frustratingly stated in "Amadeus", and I find myself uttering it each day, "What is God thinking?"
Forever Marine| 4.14.10 @ 11:18AM
"What is God thinking?"
In the book, Sophie's Choice, that line came up relating to the holocaust.
"Where was God? Where was Man"?
Tim| 4.14.10 @ 11:32AM
"Where was God? Where was Man"?
Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima, Midway...
Forever Marine| 4.14.10 @ 11:01AM
You are right, sir. He is doing it on purpose.
"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine".
GreyLion| 4.14.10 @ 12:01PM
"I will treat it with respect for it shall save my life and the lives of my brothers"
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 2:19PM
Not to worry, my friend ... "I contend that anyone who has, over the course of 15 months, done as much damage to the economy, our defense, our moral, and well being" - President Obama, with President Bush before him saved the economy from another Great Depression, he has place emphasis on defense where it needs to be, not for political expediency, he's promoted school children to stay in school, equal pay for women, promotes tolerance and cooperation within and outside the United States, so I see nothing immoral with any of that, and he has provided healthcare for all to provide for your well being. We will be fine, he is proving to be one of greatest Presidents, and while I expect y'all don't agree, in time he will easily be spoken of in the same sentences with Ronald Reagan and FDR as one of the greats.
KDW| 4.14.10 @ 10:53PM
Franklin:
Obama is proving to be one of our greatest
Presidents? Even if you like him he has only
been President for 15 months. Certainly
that is not enough time to make pronouncements
of greatness especially in light of his rather dismal
performance up to now. All Obama has accomplished up to now is run up massive deficits,
plan to continue running up massive deficits, begin the dismantling of our military and
embarrass himself on the world stage by grovelling to our enemies. He is making Jimmy
Carter look like Winston Churchill.
My guess is that when Obama's Presidency is
over (hopefully after 2012) he will be held in
lower esteem than Carter and yes that will be
some accomplishment.
Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 8:14AM
Since you obviously cannot get out of the right-wing talking points echo chamber, and look at facts, not polls, I guess you'll just have to wait until history is written. I, on the other hand, am enjoying watching history being made.
KDW| 4.15.10 @ 9:03AM
Franklin,
You obviously need to get out of your left wing
talking points echo chamber. How will political
greatness be achieved by the enormous trillion
dollar deficits Obama himself 'budgeted' for,
the grovelling to our enemies (truly embarrassing)
and the trashing of our allies (Israel, Honduras)?
Everything I have noted above is factually
accurate? How will any of this benefit Obama
or the country?
I will agree we are witnessing history. We are
watching an arrogant man, ignorant of history
and unqualified to be President, in the process
of creating a mess that will take the U.S. decades
to crawl out from under.
Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 3:56PM
Oh, you mean like the mess we are crawling out from under that Bush left behind? Only President to leave office with less jobs in the economy than when he arrived. Or how about 2 wars that the Ineptitude-in-Chief left for us to clean up. Or how about the mess he left from Katrina and the Gulf Coast? The only mess you're talking about regarding President Obama is the supposed spending and taxes that y'all are hepped up about. What happened to "Deficits don't matter? " They were a much larger % of the economy under Reagan, but it didn't matter then .. and it didn't matter under Bush either - but now that a Democrat is President, oh my all the hand wringing over deficits ... it's not that hard to fix, but this President at least cares to fix it...
KDW| 4.15.10 @ 5:04PM
Franklin,
More left wing talking points?
How is adding roughly $10 trillion in deficit
spending over the next 8 years (Obama's own
budget figures and desires) fixing the problem?
Deficits do matter especially if they are numbered
in the trillions. Obama's deficits , current and
projected , are far higher than any other
President in our countries history. Even
adjusted for inflation Obama's deficits are
2 1/2 times the size of Reagan's worst deficit
years. And the deficits in Reagan's final years
had dropped dramatically while tax revenues
exploded. Obama plans these insane levels
of spending forever.
Also, spare me the Bush bashing talking points.
I carry no brief for Bush. I thought Bush started
out strong, but was ultimately a failure as
President. The problem is Obama is even worse.
Bush's failures, real or percieved , are no
excuse for Obama's incompetence.
scott| 4.14.10 @ 3:43PM
The START treaty has been on-going since the early 1990s. There is nothing new here. Heck, Reagan was the first to start talking about a world without nukes. Get over yourself.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:32PM
more to come. watch. no one is paying attention....the plans are already being slowly deployed to dismantle DoD. withdrawl from Iraq/Afghanistan is only a small part of the larger dynamic now in play.
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.14.10 @ 7:48AM
You people have got it all wrong. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is destroying our ability to DEFEND OURSELVES and our ALLIES. He is DECIMATING the Defences of the ONE COUNTRY that is keeping all EVIL at bey. His START TREATY has weakened ALL OF US, in the FREE WORLD.
Why would he do this? Why would any American President do this? This is for YOU - Ret. Marine.
"And I saw the Beast rise from the Sea. And he was given a 'MOUTH' to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. ("WE are the ones we've been waiting for.") And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelations 13-5.
A MOUTH. This guy is ALL MOUTH. Forty Two Months? A Presidential Term is Forty Eight Months. Of all the numbers that the BIBLE could have used. There's no other explanation.You people have got it all wrong. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is destroying our ability to DEFEND OURSELVES and our ALLIES. He is DECIMATING the Defences of the ONE COUNTRY that is keeping all EVIL at bey. His START TREATY has weakened ALL OF US, in the FREE WORLD.
Why would he do this? Why would any American President do this? This is for YOU - Ret. Marine.
"And I saw the Beast rise from the Sea. And he was given a 'MOUTH' to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. ("WE are the ones we've been waiting for.") And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelations 13-5.
A MOUTH. This guy is ALL MOUTH. Forty Two Months? A Presidential Term is Forty Eight Months. Of all the numbers that the BIBLE could have used. There's no other explanation.
Ryan| 4.14.10 @ 11:49AM
No, no, no, NO.
Selecting a few verses out of Revelation is REALLY bad proof-texting and bad theology, even if you're a dispensationalist. I don't like Obama, and think that there ARE shades of antiChrist in him (a word never found in Revelation, btw and typically used generally, not specifically).
It's a BAD idea to apply it to modern times - it's been done for centuries and no one has ever been proven right or seen their prediction come to pass. We don't get to make the call on Revelation - a book I doubt even John understood.
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 1:56PM
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow all that (kinda rambling) but one thing stuck out, are you saying 42=48? That doesn't seem to scan.
MikeBee| 4.14.10 @ 6:38PM
Timothy is correct about one thing: Obama knows exactly what he is doing. It is his intent to weaken and ruin the United States of America. Communists and Socialists believe that all nations should be equal in every way, militarily, economically, socially. They effect this by bringing the richest nations down to the level of the poorer nations. Obama is actively achieving this goal.
RobertS| 4.18.10 @ 10:40PM
Timothy,
Why the hell can't conservatives spell? What is "EVIL at bey" supposed to mean? And only a Brit would spell Defenses with a "c".
Another point - learn to control your cut and paste - when you double paste, it makes you look "ignant".
Mattled| 4.14.10 @ 8:04AM
In the words of Wanda Sykes......anything that "fails" will do.
Mike M| 4.14.10 @ 8:08AM
So Obama and the Dems will rule over a ruined country. "It beats having Bush as prez" they think.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 2:24PM
Naw, Bush was okay, but Obama is better. Bush lowered taxes thinking that was a good thing, but if he had studied Reagan, he would have realized that although Reagan lowered tax rates, it was the tax reform that mattered. Reagan closed so many loopholes in the tax code, it was no longer profitable to "lose money", so the efforts were put into making money. That was Bush's mistake - he only lowered taxes, without the tax reform, and we didn't have the great "kick" to the economy. Reforming the tax code is on Obama's radar list, he gets it, and that will be a good thing.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:37PM
yea. right. I'll keep track as the debt keeps ticking upward.
HE/THEY FRIGGIN LIED TO US ABOUT HEALTHCARE COSTS. DON'T YOU GET IT?
of a sudden..they are now concerned about the debt? these folks cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything. they are also turning out to be a larger threat to privacy rights than the Bushies ever imagined.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:29PM
Enjoying the ringing of the right-wing echo chamber are you? Don't you know they are trying to indoctrinate you with repetitive bumper sticker politics?
So which do you prefer, Reagan or Bush? Reagan was right and so is Obama .. they are very much alike; Bush was a mutant in the Presidency. Go look up the tax facts, do you homework, and stop spouting the conservative talking points- it's not very flattering of you.
coal carrier| 4.14.10 @ 8:15AM
In the industrial world, it is bad enough for an inexperienced Harvard graduate engineer to make a mistake on the factory floor. Typically his or her misguided decisions could result in a simple, short time, monetary loss for the company.
However, an inexperienced politician, operating on the world stage, could be responsible for the death of a nation. In my humble opinion, this President is well on his way to killing the United States both financially and militarily.
stephanie| 4.14.10 @ 8:47AM
can any of these reversals this prez has implemented be brought back? Can a new president make us safe again?
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 2:27PM
Yes, he's in office now. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons in an of itself makes us safer. I don't see how the Russians who have no money, no muscle (and that's what the article says is their reason to take our arsenal down) are a threat to us, and if they became one, why wouldn't we just reconstitute the nuclear arsenal? There is still way more than enuf nucs for deterrence - Obama's move has enticed countries around the world to give us their nucs for safe storage or dismantling, which keeps us and the world safer from the real threats - Terrorists and rogue states.
Stephanie| 4.14.10 @ 2:38PM
Geeze, for a minute, I thought you were serious. This is a SNL skit, right?
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 5:10PM
If you read a bit more, honey, you'd know that "Obama's move has enticed countries around the world to give us their nucs for safe storage or dismantling, which keeps us and the world safer from the real threats - Terrorists and rogue states. " is the underlying strategy behind the Russian treaty.
MikeBee| 4.14.10 @ 6:33PM
Franklin,
This is the same thinking that has made our cities safe only for thieves and crooks. They are the only ones who can get guns these days, with all the restrictions.
The safest state in the U.S. is Texas, with the freedom to carry guns allowed. There, criminals know that they could be shot at any moment, so they are quite a bit more careful. But in Detroit, for example, where law-abiding citizens have been encouraged to turn in their guns (paid for them by the city government), innocent people are killed almost every day by criminals with guns.
This same scenario will play out internationally on a macro scale, once civilized nations have rendered themselves defenseless. Criminal nations, like those who support terrorism, will use nukes freely, while the civilized nations will be unable to defend themselves.
It really is amazing how vacant liberals can be when it comes to defending themselves.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 8:52PM
Good Grief ... no one is advocating unilateral disarmament. And, comparing a nation to individuals is just stupid. And, as far as Texas is concerned, y'all should take a look at this:
http://os.cqpress.com/rankings/statecrime2009.htm.
Of the top 10 worst crime cities, 50% are in Republican states. Of the top 10 best states in crime statistics, 50% are blue states. Texas is listed 36 of the 50 states. Soooo, my friend, Texas is less safe than 35 other states. Not a very good showing, would you say.
What I find really amazing is how much garbage and untruths conservatives are willing to believe an repeat endlessly to make their point, not letting those pesky facts get in the way. Do you homework before opening your pie-hole, would y'all?
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:39PM
yup....his charm is going to entice everyone into the fold.
keep clicking your heels. your being sold out and don't even know it.
Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 9:32PM
Yep, he already has ... just look at his approval around the world - just 'cause you can't admit he knows what he's doing is your problem, not his. You've already been sold out and you are loving it ... drink the dittohead Koolaid, but we hope one day you will awaken and challenge the Fixed Newsers and Rush Loudmouth on their "facts" .. losers all.
scott| 4.14.10 @ 3:45PM
How many nuclear warheads do you need, stephanie, to "feel safe"?
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:41PM
why don't you tell us Scotty boy?
Louis Jenkins| 4.14.10 @ 8:55AM
"This gives Russia a veto over the defense of the American people against nuclear attack."
The world is waiting for the final shoe to drop. What will be the result? You can go ahead and think that reducing the number of nukes is a good thing, and perhaps it is, but the long run of facts and figures show that we are decesenting into a lapse of meaninglessness. That is his plan. We'll have to hold on, otherwise, we're done for. Can't wait to see which way the dregs of the District of Criminals go on this one.
Mimi| 4.14.10 @ 9:17AM
Peter: Yes , again another excellent article. This one's a RILE-UP!!!!
Mimi| 4.14.10 @ 9:37AM
Outrage after outrage,America cry's prays, on and on it goes. His polls go down, and he "PLAYS GET EVEN" with more serious business. Our hope may be in the third rail. My GOD what must Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito be feeling in the pit of their gut? I bet they can't wait for the paperwork! For the dem's: It is always party over country: Patriotic dem's WAKE-UP!!! For the MSM: Do your job, start telling the truth! How can you keep your job, you are failing : WE THE PEOPLE" For American's: Nov. 2 is 200 days away. think TURNOUT, TURNOUT, TURNOUT!!!!!!!!
Margie| 4.14.10 @ 2:19PM
Amen, Mimi.
Patriots watch this~
"The Blood of Patriots & Tyrants: The Tea Party's Founders."
http://www.pjtv.com/v/3353
davelnaf| 4.14.10 @ 9:43AM
All the head-scratching over what Obama is up to is useful in keeping people alert and on their guard against him. But overshadowing everything else about him Obama is mainly driven by his pursuit of the next adrenaline rush. And the recent nuclear conference in Washington was an example of how well the rest of the world now understands this fact. The countries attending were doing their own version of ‘feeding the beast,’ with the ‘beast’ being Obama’s ego.
Son Of Sam| 4.14.10 @ 10:00AM
Obama's ego is inverse proportion to the size of his brain. Currently,his ego is the size of yankee Stadium
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
Ned| 4.14.10 @ 10:21AM
President Obama is possibly the most ravaging bomb Bill Ayers ever had a part in planting.
This slow motion explosion will go on for years and unfortunately many will pay will with their lives.
Right now our enemies are just sitting back waiting to see how much damage these folks can do to our country before they even need raise a finger.
Someday they will move, unless we can change the lunacy of self-destruction through elections.
My only hope is that we haven't already passed some point of demarcation, drawn by our enemies, which will commit them to action and take advantage of this once in an epoch opportunity to bring down a giant, not from their own strength, but from the giants foolishness
CL| 4.14.10 @ 10:33AM
I do not think Barak Huessin Obama gives a rip about defending this nation. He hates it and is gripped with anger and in his mind has scores to settle. He would be pleased to see us go down.
Drew | 4.14.10 @ 10:47AM
What a steaming pile of utter nonsense. I find it hard to believe that anyone could manage to cobble together such a disparate collection or distortions and outright hogwash.
Let's start with the "how would we pay for WWIII" silliness. The short answer to this is: We'd respond to the nightmare scenario sketched out by using our overwhelming conventional capabilities. And we'd STILL have a a massive nuclear backup capability, if for whatever reason, it became necessary.
The longer answer is this: It is almost inconceivable that any future war, under any set of circumstances imaginable, would require the sort of mass mobilization that occured during WWII. Simply training a combat infantryman nowadays takes more than a year. And building and deploying complex weapons systems like tanks and strike aircraft takes years - even using existing designs. No possible large-scale modern war would last that long.
The second argument is this: We've ALREADY had a large scale war. We've been fighting in Iraq for the past seven years. And how did G.W. Bush "pay" for it? Answer: He didn't. He didn't have the decency to go on television and tell the American people that, "Hey - things didn't go as planned." Iraq was going to cost more money, and that as a result he was asking all Americans to pay a little bit more in taxes.
Instead, he left in place tax cuts that benefited overwhelmingly the richest Americans - without managing to spur the economic or job growth these tax cuts were supposed to. Which doubled the national debt - and left us with massive deficits. Any time I hear Conservatives blathering their bullshit about deficits they need to be reminded about Bush, and Republicans tax cuts, role in creating the situation. You can keep pretending otherwise - but it merely highlights the bankruptcy of your argument.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 11:01AM
Folks,
if you missed it, please see my pasted comment at the top of these comments.
Drew, your nonsense is so upside down, I cannot believe it.
I shall just blast your foundation by de-bunking ONE of your communist ,(pardon the shorthand), talking points.
How many private sector jobs ...per year...did the Dubyah administration policies allow? Oh, and how much did the entire "economic pie" grow...per year during his Presidency.
Sir you are either seriously "history challenged", or simply our enemy.
Drew| 4.14.10 @ 11:56AM
Debunking my talking points? Try it, you silly old fool.
Lets start with National Debt:
As of September 29, 2008:
"On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch."
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....00803.html
Try and find any source (even Fox News) that will tell you any differently. Its not "opinion" - its fact.
And that is BEFORE the impact of the recession came into play.
Nick| 4.14.10 @ 12:10PM
Drew the Molech Worshiping Troll,
But, it's okay that President Dither's current budget adds $9,7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade?
Blackwatch| 4.14.10 @ 12:47PM
trillions--people don't understand that number.
A trillion is 1000 billion
Hey drew, The Kenyan had a deficit of $1600 billion more in his first year than Bush did in his last. GWB's last deficit was $400 billion.
The burn-through rate is 400% faster. China, et al won't be lending us money much longer. Look at Greece and the EU. My guess is 20 months or so before the Chinese repudiate our advances to buy more of our junk debt. They too are waiting to see what happens in November.
What will Obama give up to get more Chinese debt financing? Maybe Taiwan? Maybe the Spratly islands off the Philipines? Looks like we will be seeing Chinese oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico soon. They can sell us our own oil.
Drew you need to read some history. The world is full of people who hate freedom and liberty. The Kenyan is one of them.
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 1:38PM
Well, yes, Obama (Really? You try to take weak little shots at him by calling him "the Kenyan?") has a higher deficit than Bush did, but its not like Bush shut off the faucet when he left the white house. Obama had the largest debt in US history before he even set foot in the oval office.
Now you can argue he should have immediately worked to reduce the deficit run up by Bush and the repubs instead of spending even more money on his own domestic agenda, bu why should it be the job of every democratic president to clean up the mess left by his republican predecessor? Aren't you supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility? And yet we see that the debt has risen under every repub prez of modern times, and has only fallen during the tenures of a few democrats, most notably Clinton.
Or is that the plan to block the democratic agenda? Run up such a big deficit every time the Republican's come into power that the Democrats will have to spend all their time in power dealing with it rather than passing spending legislation of their own?
... Actually ... it does have a kind of elegant brilliance to it as sinister plans go.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 2:06PM
Mr. Soros,
Please give Tyler a bonus!
He ...almost... got your talking points just right!
He screwed up though, so don't make his bonus too big.
We have a pretty informed crowd here, and as such we are ROTFLOAO, at his silliness.
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 2:40PM
I don't know who Mr. Soros is, or what rotfloao means (though its kinda fun to say), but if you believe I am incorrect in some factual regard, I'd love to hear where and be given opportunity to respond.
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 2:42PM
Oh, someone just explained ROTFLOAO to me, web speak, gotcha.
NavyBrat | 4.14.10 @ 1:12PM
"It is almost inconceivable that any future war, under any set of circumstances imaginable, would require the sort of mass mobilization that occured during WWII."
Pure tripe & drivel. It was fools like you who said, with the advent of air to air missiles, that the days of the dogfight & the gun were over. They weren't & guns were quickly put on our aircraft shortly thereafter. Some have said that it isn't neccessary for us to train our men in bayonet tactics anymore (Army pukes, NOT Marines, thank God). They argue that such skills aren't needed on the "modern battlefield." This also is pure tripe.
See this for the relevancy of cold steel on today's field of battle:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho.....e88661.ece
The point being the old military adage that "no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Just as you can NEVER predict the intracacies of the next war. In doing so, you prove yourself ignorant of an obvious fact: the only predictable thing about a war is that war is unpredictable.
Try again, Junior.
Drew | 4.14.10 @ 2:13PM
Quote:It was fools like you who said, with the advent of air to air missiles, that the days of the dogfight & the gun were over
No it wasn't. It was the professional military establishment that ran the air force. Which, if anything, ought to give one pause when evaluating the judgement of of such (non-civilian) bureaucrats.
I'll be honest and I say I don't really follow your argument. The 2010 Obama defense budget includes not only an inflation-adjusted pay raise for military personnel, but also an increase in the active-duty by approximately 30,000 to just beyond 547,000.
I'm not completely sure how significant bayonets are in the future of land combat - but I totally fail to see how having an extra 30,000 personnel trained, at least theoretically, in how to use them is evidence of "weak leadership."
Let's also not forget that the Obama administration and Congress has, for the first time in some years, fully funded VA by putting it on a two-year budget cycle. Or the fact that the Obama administration has put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations into the budget - rather than hiding them in special appropriations bills. Or the fact that President Obama personally donated $250,000 of his Nobel Peace Prize towards the Fisher House at Dover Airforce Base, to provide accomodations for families of deceased servicemembers as they greet their loved ones' remains.
Maybe you'd like to keep lying to yourself that this sort of action is evidence of "weak leadership." I care to think differently.
"Debunk" - if you want to try - any of the facts I've laid out for you. But I bet you can't.
NavyBrat | 4.14.10 @ 2:51PM
What good does pay do if the guys getting paid don't continue to have the best military equipment on the block? I.E. the F-22, F-35, missile defense, not developing anti satillite capabilities while the Chinese are doing EXACTLY that, the list could go on ad nauseum.
If you had read the article about bayonets I cited in my link, you'd understand the neccessity of such training in today's modern combat. It's idiots like you who think it's a stupid idea, until a unit gets over-run (Blackhawk Down anyone?). How anyone could miss my point that the next war is unpredictable is strange to me. I thought that point would be plain to anyone with a middle school education. Guess I thought too highly of your intellect.
scott| 4.14.10 @ 3:47PM
Are you delusional? Look at our Defense budget and look at Chinas. There is no comparison in the amount of resources put into the US Defense budget. Hell it could be cut in half and still drawf the rest of the world.
NavyBrat | 4.14.10 @ 4:11PM
So that's a reason why we shouldn't keep our edge? We should just chill a little while & let our would be adversaries catch up? No, dear Scott, it's you who are delusional my friend. Just as delusional as your tovarich, Drew.
NavyBrat | 4.14.10 @ 4:16PM
Oh, BTW Scott. If the Chinese shoot down some of our satellites, that would TREMENDOUSLY negate our technological advantages. Add to this the fact that they are the NUMBER ONE PERPETRATORS of cyber attacks against our defense systems & you have all the reason in the world to develop OUR anti-sat capabilities. Get it sonny boy?
Tyler S| 4.14.10 @ 6:10PM
Riiiight, lets build cool sci fi weapons for the wars we MAY fight rather than better arming ourselves for the wars we are fighting. Look, I'm all for technology, in weaponry and elsewhere, but I think (as do the leaders of the military) that the best way to ensure our security is to spend our defense money on things which can actually help us in the two wars we're already in. I mean, really, isn't having a huge portion of our military engaged oversees about the worst defensive position to be in? The F-22 isn't helping us in the middle east at the moment, so building more of them right now makes little sense. We're best served by focusing on the task at hand so we can get our troops home and be ready for anything else which may come up. We can always work on cool sci fi weapons in peace time.
Tim| 4.14.10 @ 11:34AM
Newtopia!
Pete| 4.14.10 @ 12:33PM
I think this puts the final touches on the debate as to whether Osama's actions in office are driven by criminal stupidity or intentional malice towards the USA.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 1:06PM
Pete,
Yep!
Blackwatch,
Yep. Thanks for the numbers. I did not have them handy, and drewbie conveniently rolled Obama's debt/deficits into Dubyah's.
You know, one cool American said, paraphrasing "millions for defense...not one dime in tribute".
Yep, Dubyah allowed the deficits to fight a world war on terrorists. Obama pushes huge deficits...for the "takers"...and from we "makers".
Bob Miller| 4.14.10 @ 12:46PM
Let's hope we still have a defense infrastructure, defense industry, and capable armed forces after the saboteurs are voted out of office.
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 1:25PM
Okay, you know we still have more than enough nukes to end all life on Earth several times over, right? How are we less safe being able to kill 10 planets than 15? We've only got the one.
And the US definitely gains something by getting Russia to reduce stockpiles. If you're a crazy terrorist looking for some nuclear weapons, where you gonna look? Maybe at the Russian government, who suffer from rampant corruption, have more nukes than they can adequately deal with, and have even had a hard time keeping track of them all. Getting them to reduce the number makes everyone safer.
The cold war is over, this is true. Not really sure that we won it, but the Soviets damn sure lost it. Our focus now, however, should be both on dissuading other countries from developing new nukes and preventing fringe groups from getting their hands on nukes. Reducing Russia's stockpile is a good thing (As Reagan noted when he did EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS OBAMA, EVEN SAYING THE GOAL WAS A WORLD WITHOUT NUKES).
scott| 4.14.10 @ 3:53PM
Tyler, you are dealing with narrow minded people who are convinced that being a "great country" means continuing a never ending arms race. Ask them what the appropriate number of nuclear warheads is, and it will always be "MORE, MORE"
Margie| 4.14.10 @ 4:35PM
Channeling Mayor for Life Ed Koch: "Wrong!"
Us normal Americans say that being a GREAT COUNTRY means not having your head in the sand and that means being awake and aware and ARMED to the teeth, baby! It means remaining the strongest, richest, most well prepared nation on the face of the earth.
The narrow minded non-interventionists will continue their anti-war protestations and nonsensical Uptopian drivel just they they did when they were teenage hippies, while the normal Americans will keep doing all the heavy lifting.
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 5:50PM
But what do enough nukes to kill everyone several times over prepare us for? Wouldn't once over be entirely sufficient for any possible contingency? I mean, there is such a thing as over prepared. If you go camping for a week, you aren't better prepared if you bring need enough food to last a year than if you bring enough to last a week (maybe 2, just to be safe, but anything beyond that is unnecessary overkill). I mean, what do all the extra nukes do for us, really? If we can give up some of this excess baggage in order to get somewhat more exposed Russian nukes definitively out of the market, why would we not want to do so?
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 7:11PM
Tyler,
Heh, I hardly know where to begin with you and Scott, and Drew.....
Oh well, I will start with YOUR stupid, utterly ignorant assertions:
Tyler quote:
""Okay, you know we still have more than enough nukes to end all life on Earth several times over, right? How are we less safe being able to kill 10 planets than 15? We've only got the one.""
(I just love de-bunking these idiots heh.)
In their heyday, the Soviets could "blow up" 4% of the 48 State land-mass.
(50 square miles per warhead...IF they used the most efficient means...ie air-bursts that create no fallout.)
Picture a basketball resting on the gym floor, folks. How much of that ball is actually resting on the gym floor. .....perhaps 1 square inch. OK Now imagine the basketball cut in half, (air burst), and the cut side resting on the gym floor...(64 square inches) ...64 TIMES more "bang for the buck" using airbursts...50 square miles per burst blown up. 5000 warheads times 50 square miles equals 250,000 square miles blown up. THAT IS A LOT OF BLOWN UP CONTINENTAL US...ISN'T IT?
Would anyone here like to calculate with me how many square miles constitute the 48 contiguous States?
(heh, on my calculator I dont have enough zeros so I must round off. square miles US contiguous= 2,000, miles by 3,000 miles= 6,000,000 square miles....(of which 4% could be blown up with a perfect launch of 5,000 warheads.)
Heh...don't be in Tyler's mommie's basement when they go off is the key.
...fallout? sit in a storm drain for three or four days. (take water with you).
Oh, folks, to get all this in perspective...four middling size volcanic eruptions are about equal in megatonnage blast of all the above explosions. About a month's worth of thunderstorms across the world equal a similar megatonnage of explosive power.
Heh,
I just thought it would be fun to confront hysterical "destroying ten planets" bullcorn with hard facts.
These young wimps simply do not understand the threats we older folks had to look at, square in the eye, growing up.
GROW UP, WIMPS!
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 7:56PM
Yeah.... fallout doesn't fade in 4 days... You can render the surface of the planet too irradiated for human habitation without glassing the surface (around 300 nukes should do it). Even if you could wait it out, the plants and animals we rely on for survival cannot... Oh sure, a few humans will survive and struggle on into the future for a time. For the vast, vast majority of us, however, curtains can come fairly easily.
And what's with you and accusing everyone of living in Mommy's basement? I'm starting to think we're seeing some transference here.
Nor am I the one resorting to Hysterics, I'm trying to say reducing our nukes by a third will not cause the world to go mad. The hysterics are entirely on the other side of this equation.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 1:40PM
What Hogwash ... "President Obama is well on his way to reversing Reagan's Cold War victory, losing it without firing a shot." President Reagan was specifically against having any nuclear weapons in the world and it was his determination to rid the world of the nuclear threat that created the atmosphere to begin to ban nuclear weapons.
This is just another right-wing attack on President Obama using scare tactics to score political points. However we can reduce the level of weapon grade nuclear material, the better. Did y'all forget about TERRORISM and loose nucs?
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 2:18PM
Franklin,
I am very sorry, sir, but if you are correct.....you die.
You said.....
"""President Reagan was specifically against having any nuclear weapons in the world """
Well yes, that was President Reagan's dream. That is why he spent a hundred billion dollars on "Space based weapons...OFF the "world".
Reagan's dream was to obsolesce Soviet missiles by being able to shoot them down in outer space.
Franklin, you guys need better lies.
The ones you are using are sooooo easy to de-bunk.
You "useful idiots", as described by your own leaders, are destined to lose big time. You are going to have to work for a living...or keep to mommie's basement.
scott| 4.14.10 @ 3:50PM
Ronald Reagan said that nuclear weapons are “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” … “[F]or the eight years I was president,” he wrote in his memoirs, “I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind.” … “We live in a troubled world, and the United States and China, as two great nations, share a special responsibility to help reduce the risks of war. We both agree that there can be only one sane policy to preserve our precious civilization in this modern age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.”
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 3:52PM
In Reagan's own words, "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. " Obama continues Reagan's legacy to rid the world of nucs....
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 9:02PM
that was the goal nitwit.
methods and implementing policies are a different matter.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:41PM
Read Reagan's memoirs, dittohead - he was against nuclear weapons, period. But, i realize that doesn't fit your right-wing echo chamber - oops shattered another myth about the Conservative God. Go read something Einstein, and learn - then return.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:53PM
old tex......these folks are here to spin. they should be ignored. it is a standard technique I observed honed to perfection in lib blogs prior to the election -> extricate random statements, ignore context, build a strawman argument.
Reagan was against nuclear proliferation. Reagan understood the horrific threat of nuclear weapons. this is news? the issue is the policies he adopted and the measures he undertook to reduce the presence and threat......and here there is no continuous thread to Maobama whatsoever.
I have detected a noticeable ramp up lately in these trained monkeys posting to conservative leaning blogs, appearances on more conservative leaning TV shows, etc. It's the same pattern I observed in the run-up to the last election. Challenge everything.....place folks on the defensive......deploy strawmen arguments. this has every appearance of Mr Plouffe back in action. watch...the vitriol will escalate as Nov nears. don't fall for the bait. there is no conversation with these people. hew to the message.
RAMIII| 4.14.10 @ 2:20PM
This President and his administration is an unmitigated disaster!
I remember once driving west on very flat land and many miles ahead I saw a huge thunderstorm building. It was inevitable that we would have to weather it. There was no escaping it.
At first we pulled over to wait until I realized that this was in essence succumbing to the potential destruction coming over us.
When a Semi Tractor Trailer passed us I got behind him and drove through the storm. In this circumstance we avoided damage to our vehicle and persons, but we noticed an area that had significant hail and wind damage.
This is what we've got people; an administration that is wreaking havoc on our great nation. Let us get through as much as we can and vote this November to show them that "We the People" will allow ourselves to be governed, but draw the line at being ruled.
Ret_AF| 4.14.10 @ 3:29PM
Let's face it, we are seeing the fast decline into oblivion of this once great nation. 3 more years will find the nation too far gone to recover without divine intervention. Maybe the Mayan's had right Dec 21st 2012. In any case the progressives won and now what will they do with a nation of losers?
Tyler S.| 4.14.10 @ 5:58PM
Yes, certainly the nation of today is much worse than the nation of yesteryear. Well ... unless you're black ... or any other racial minority really ... or a woman ... or gay ... or of a non Christian faith ... or disabled ... or poor ... or a believer in a socialist philosophy ... but yeah, for the rest of us, this is way worse.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:56PM
lolly pop...lolly pop.......
you're such a caring person!!!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.14.10 @ 7:30PM
Ret_AF,
Screw you ...you wimpy little air-scout!
Every committed American can end two or three committed communists, (pardon the shorthand).
Have you retired from being a man?
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:02PM
As a former Air Force man myself I think you should be a little more tolerant, know the facts, not the fiction from the right-wing echo chamber (that's Fixed News and Rush Loudmouth) where all things Obama are bad, bad, bad. That couldn't be further from the truth. You defended this country, as have I, you should be ashamed of yourself with the disrespect you show the very United States you served and it's duly elected leaders, especially President Barack Hussein Obama. I'd prefer you just salute and say "Yes, Sir" as you were taught.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 9:15PM
wow! former as opposed to retired!
he hasn't disrespected anyone. you do understand the difference between a serving member of the armed services and private citizen....don't you?
yea. yea. we get the movie reference.
well..I served a full career in the Navy. and I find the current President, like I did another I saw laughing in Norfolk behind the scenes at a Cole memorial, to himself have disrespected his office, the Constitution, and the American people. which is the larger crime?
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:39PM
Well, now, we all love you Navy boys that transport our planes where we can do the actual fighting, while you fix our meals and clean our ..... Yeah, disrespect - of course you have not one fact - it's amazing how you Cons are ruled by emotions, not logic. Didn't you learn to control it in the Navy - say did you cross the equator with Congressman Massa btw? Can you tell us the real story?
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 10:59PM
you made my day! your posts are bereft of any cogent thinking...let alone logic.
pack it in tadpole. you aren't equal to the task.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 11:09PM
btw.....you confirmed my suspicions: you're a masquerading fraud. Navy doesn't transport a/c for AF. But I'm not in business to reveal facts about what I do/have done to you...any more than I am here to educate you about force structure and Service missions.
You need to get back to the business of defending your hero who has made a shambles of the Constitution and who has cultivated a culture of corruption that is simply breathtaking.
If you're going to play smart...the first requirement is to be smart.
Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 8:27AM
Once again, no facts, no answers, just opinion, emotion, and innuendo. So, what are those pesky flying machines that fly from the tops of those, what do they call them, aircraft carriers? So are you saying the Navy NEVER has transported Air Force aircraft? Really? Ever hear of the Joint Strike Fighter? Another one of those pesky facts that gets in the way of the echo chamber ... have a nice day!
Tim*| 4.14.10 @ 4:15PM
“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”
Margaret Thatcher
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:12PM
If we are really anxious not to have nuclear weapons in Iran, the first thing is to call an international conference on abolishing all nuclear weapons, including Israeli nuclear weapons. - John Cornyn, Senator from Texas ...
My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained. - Sen John McCain ....
Mimi| 4.14.10 @ 4:28PM
Franklin and Drew: You boy's just don't get it. Obama has completely lost the faith and TRUST of the american people. No matter what he say's or whatever he does, we will never believe it is for the good of the U.S.A. In 2012 we'll elect a REAL american!!!
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:17PM
Ha ... read it and weep dearie ... he is at 50%, up from 2 weeks ago .... 4/11-4/13 ....
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....4.html....
Those pesky facts just keep getting your way in the right-wing echo chamber, don't they? Have a nice day ...
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 10:51PM
the only thing rising with this President is the unemployment rate.
other polls have him falling. easy game to play!!!
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 10:54PM
I stand self-corrected. the deficit is rising as well. as is our taxes - yet another broken promise...or would that be intentional lie?
Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 8:22AM
Show me one Republican President that ever reduced the deficit or even cared about it ... have a nice day!
Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 8:20AM
Did you bother to look at the facts, dittohead? Even your boy Rasmussen has him at 50% ... . You take the most recent polls as I listed and voila - it is no game, but then you know that didn't you ?
roberts| 4.18.10 @ 10:51PM
Why do conservatives always look at themselves and other conservatives and come out with "the American People"? Obama is the most popular political figure in the country, and, in fact, the world. Admit it Mimi.
philfl63| 4.14.10 @ 8:25PM
Like it or not, nukes are our friend. Remember, he who has the most toys wins. And to Tyler S. Is Tyler your first name or last name? Are you a man or a male? Your comments lead me to believe you are a minority of some sort and with great antipathy to traditional America.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 8:43PM
bottom line:
Republicans like to terrorize foreign countries.
Democrats/Liberals prefer to terrorize their own country.
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 9:08PM
I hate to say it.....but
keep the anger. nurture it. make it work for you this Nov. this government cannot survive without the support of all the people. at some point there will be a crisis (be it military, fiscal, whatever) and they will not have the moral authority to lead. they are going to implode from their own overweaning arrogance, incompetence and hubris. they are dishonest to a degree that is unparalled. eventually...even the densest of Americans will figure it out.
Franklin| 4.14.10 @ 9:20PM
Hmmm, only Communists would advocate the people to overthrow the US Govt. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him? Rabal rouser...
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 10:44PM
jeepers Mr Wilson!
Overthrow the US Gov't now is it? Are you...by chance...projecting?
do I need to parse the thinking for you or are you just another OZ?
carnot| 4.14.10 @ 10:48PM
franklin...you just aren't all that bright. you should recognize your limitations and defer to your seniors. Mr Plouffe needs to assign someone a tad more skilled to this beat.
Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 8:18AM
Seniors? Who would that be? Sarah Barracuda, "I can see Russia from my house", Quitter Palin? Maybe she can scare you into believing Russia's going to invade Alaska - it belonged to them at one time; they might want it back ... I'll take David Plouffe over Frank Luntz anyday.
carnot| 4.15.10 @ 3:10PM
well....airman Franklin...at least your out of the closet now!
Nick| 4.16.10 @ 1:31PM
Franklin,
I can see November from my house!
And come next January, President Dither's spend-a-thon will come to a halt.
But, his Justice Deparpment will still want to read your e-mails without a warrant. Isn't that a crime against humanity, or something?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002423-38.html
RobertS| 4.18.10 @ 10:52PM
Franklin you rock.
Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 8:49AM
Must Know Headlines 4.15.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fsdjk| 6.30.10 @ 11:39PM
beijing massage shanghai girl