• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another open mike issue...will they never learn??

American said:
No, what he said was that after the election, nothing can stop him from getting rid of almost all of our nukes. That's what he meant, the socialist son of a bitch.
Click to expand...

What do we need all of them for anyway? In 70 years, exactly two nuclear weapons have been used in war.

There was a President who talked openly with the Russians about his dream of disarmament. Trying to think of his name...hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue...I want to say "Donald Deagan,' but that can't be right....
 
Wait, I think this might help
FCNL: "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Wall Street Journal


It was written by such left wing luminaries as George Shultz and Henry Kissinger. Oh, there we go:

Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which had also been expressed by previous American presidents.
Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
That's the question that scares many of us to death. What will obama do when he has no fear of reelection, what promises has he made behind the scenes, what is he hiding from us to get reelected?
Click to expand...

He's stupid for thinking that in a lame-duck session he'll have any sort of influence over ****.
 
American said:
No, what he said was that after the election, nothing can stop him from getting rid of almost all of our nukes. That's what he meant, the socialist son of a bitch.
Click to expand...


No, that's not what he said. But some piece of **** conservatives will lie about Obama no matter what.
 
Zyphlin said:
Some Republicans have been saying for some time now that "We must defeat Obama because if given a 2nd term he won't have the confines of re-election hampering him and he will go even farther to the left".
Click to expand...


True, however, congress DOES have to worry about it. The president isn't going to be able to get much done in a second term with the way congress is now, nor do I think he would even after this election with the way congress is going to be.

Not saying you do, but some conservatives really go overboard with this doom and gloom, Obama is going to be a dictator rhetoric.
 
upsideguy said:
The etch-a-sketch was an emperor has no clothes moment, as was this. Hard to get excited by what is patently obvious....

"Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once! "
Click to expand...

Of all the gin threads on this site, ya had to post that on this one...
 
Enola said:
I don't get it. What's so bad about what he said?
Click to expand...

I think it's been blown out of proportion and isn't a big deal, but the perception is that after the election he will have more latitude presumably to enact policies regarding missile defense that will be more palatable (read: friendlier) to Russia, and a lot of people have a problem with that.

Imagine if instead of missile defense, he were talking about reducing our nuclear stockpile. Despite the fact that it's a laudable goal, Obama would've been crushed by the media and the right for that kind of slip-up.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
I think it's been blown out of proportion and isn't a big deal, but the perception is that after the election he will have more latitude presumably to enact policies regarding missile defense that will be more palatable (read: friendlier) to Russia, and a lot of people have a problem with that.

Imagine if instead of missile defense, he were talking about reducing our nuclear stockpile. Despite the fact that it's a laudable goal, Obama would've been crushed by the media and the right for that kind of slip-up.
Click to expand...

It isn't the specific issue at hand that's in question... It's the fact that the president just indicated, after re-election (which he spoke of as a certainty), that since it's his last, he doesn't have to give a rats ass what the American people think about his policies... which we all know are deeply rooted in socialism... He's been masquerading as a moderate, but he just indicated that if he is re-elected now the mask comes off...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
It isn't the specific issue at hand that's in question... It's the fact that the president just indicated, after re-election (which he spoke of as a certainty), that since it's his last, he doesn't have to give a rats ass what the American people think about his policies... which we all know are deeply rooted in socialism... He's been masquerading as a moderate, but he just indicated that if he is re-elected now the mask comes off...
Click to expand...

You gotta be ****ting me lol...
 
StillBallin75 said:
You gotta be ****ting me lol...
Click to expand...

Republicans always read between the lines of what Obama says and inevitably come up with the same message.

read-between-the-lines.jpg
 
The nutters will take absolutely anything to help convince themselves that Obama is UP TO NO GOOD.
 
MaggieD said:
Wow, I wonder what he has in store for the American people after his re-election?
Click to expand...

Since the outcome is apparently a given, I wonder why put us through this silly election cycle? :lol:
 
rocket88 said:
When you think about it, what Obama said is pretty blatantly obvious.

a) He'll have more time after the election when he's not trying to run a full-time campaign while being President
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother you that Obama has been in campaign mode the entire time he's been president?
 
rocket88 said:
What do we need all of them for anyway? In 70 years, exactly two nuclear weapons have been used in war.
...
Click to expand...


Nuclear Weapons have been extensively used in every American War since they were first invented.

They were used in the method that is most effective for their capabilities for the purpose of promoting PEACE.

They have created a longer period of peace between the world’s top military power nations than has existed since Gun Powder was invented.

They have saved more lives in the last 60 years than were taken by the Communist Purges in Russia and China combined with all of the lives lost in all military conflicts before their creation.

Nuclear Weapons have made War between the major power impractical as a means of gaining WEALTH to support a failing political Regime!

Bellicose, Radical States like North Korea and Iran have dumped large portions of their offense weapons development budgets into Nuclear Weapons.

Be glad they didn’t think it through, and instead work on say, Genetically Modified, Ethnically Targeting, Long Gestation, Hemorrhagic Viruses.

Be very, very careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
It doesn't bother you that Obama has been in campaign mode the entire time he's been president?
Click to expand...

It bothers me that you make vague, subjective, unprovable claims like that.
 
rocket88 said:
What do we need all of them for anyway? In 70 years, exactly two nuclear weapons have been used in war.

There was a President who talked openly with the Russians about his dream of disarmament. Trying to think of his name...hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue...I want to say "Donald Deagan,' but that can't be right....
Click to expand...

A dream of disarmament is not done unilaterally like Obama wants to do. He's a fool and a traitor if he does, in my book.
 
Deuce said:
It bothers me that you make vague, subjective, unprovable claims like that.
Click to expand...

It's my opinion. I have a right to it, remember? This is the USA. Or at least is right now, no promises in the next few years.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
It's my opinion. I have a right to it, remember? This is the USA. Or at least is right now, no promises in the next few years.
Click to expand...


You didn't claim it as an opinion, you claimed it as fact. Nowhere in your comment was, "it's just my opinion".
 
StillBallin75 said:
You gotta be ****ting me lol...
Click to expand...

AdamT said:
Republicans always read between the lines of what Obama says and inevitably come up with the same message.

read-between-the-lines.jpg
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
The nutters will take absolutely anything to help convince themselves that Obama is UP TO NO GOOD.
Click to expand...

You all can thank Bush Jr. for this attitude of distrust towards Presidents that has gotten worse than at any other time in our immediate history. (by immediate I am talking within the last 20-30 years) After Bush's 2nd election he DID go crazy and DID ignore the people. So is it really that hard to believe that people think the worst when Obama makes a statement like that at a time when he thought that he was off the air?

I admit that I have never trusted Obama. I said from the getgo that he was going to be a crappy President. And in my opinion he has been. But I am also still well aware of how our previous President treated us and I have had no reason to think that Obama is any different since his election. Gitmo is still open, Obamacare instituted, Patriot Act renewed, Lybia war which Obama NEVER got congressional approval for, and other things have not changed my mind in the slightest about him.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You all can thank Bush Jr. for this attitude of distrust towards Presidents that has gotten worse than at any other time in our immediate history. (by immediate I am talking within the last 20-30 years) After Bush's 2nd election he DID go crazy and DID ignore the people. So is it really that hard to believe that people think the worst when Obama makes a statement like that at a time when he thought that he was off the air?
Click to expand...

How is this Bush's fault? We were attacked, and Bush invaded the countries that were harboring the terrorists who were responsible. What was Bush supposed to do?
 
johnny_rebson said:
How is this Bush's fault? We were attacked, and Bush invaded the countries that were harboring the terrorists who were responsible. What was Bush supposed to do?
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? The answer to your question is quite plainly stated in it.
 
johnny_rebson said:
How is this Bush's fault? We were attacked, and Bush invaded the countries that were harboring the terrorists who were responsible. What was Bush supposed to do?
Click to expand...

We didn't attack Iraq because they were harboring the people responsible for 9/11. Just in case you missed the memo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom