• 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!

Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

Do whatever you want, but there is one thing Canada can't change. It can't defend it's north. You don't have the tools or the reach.

The Chinese will give the Canadian North Slope the same status as Xinjiang and Tibet. China can take northern Canada, and the lower provinces would beg to be admitted into a dysfunctional United States.

... wait.

You're suggesting that China is going to invade Canada?
 
Public is turning against the unions Greenie. Pretty soon the pitch forks, and torches will be handed out.


j-mac

Aren't you in the Teamsters Union?
 
Are you saying it could never happen?

Liberals believe that history began the day they were born. They think their ideas are orginal. And they think wars are "never the answer", and if they are in charge, will never happen again.
 
Liberals believe that history began the day they were born. They think their ideas are orginal. And they think wars are "never the answer", and if they are in charge, will never happen again.

Please enlighten us, oh high horse conservative partisan.

Please show us the course of events, using Mutually Assured Destruction as the foundation of a war with the west, that would cause China to invade Canada :coffeepap
 
Please enlighten us, oh high horse conservative partisan.

Please show us the course of events, using Mutually Assured Destruction as the foundation of a war with the west, that would cause China to invade Canada :coffeepap


Well, I would think that the first thing that would have to happen to make that scenario happen or even possible is the weakening of American defense through, oh, I don't know, cutting the budget, and dismantling our Nuclear program, along with our Space program....Oh wait.


j-mac
 
Please enlighten us, oh high horse conservative partisan.

Please show us the course of events, using Mutually Assured Destruction as the foundation of a war with the west, that would cause China to invade Canada :coffeepap

I didn't say they were. I just laugh at how American libs just walk around with their latte and Alinsky handbook, acting like the freedom and security they take for granted has been here since the beginning of time (which in their minds, was the day they were born). They talk of the Middle Ages, WW2, the Roman Empire, etc, like they're just Spielberg screenplays.
 
Well, I would think that the first thing that would have to happen to make that scenario happen or even possible is the weakening of American defense through, oh, I don't know, cutting the budget, and dismantling our Nuclear program, along with our Space program....Oh wait.


j-mac

Oh Palease!

So you might have a few less Nukes, that's gonna be worth China invading and Beijing ending up a smouldering, uninhabitable wasteland. :coffeepap

The only way anyone is invading anyone is if Nukes Became obsolete in totality... and when that day comes, I'll support notions of War with China. Until then, there is absolutely no validity to all of this, especially when we're the only reason their economy does so well.
 
Oh Palease!

So you might have a few less Nukes, that's gonna be worth China invading and Beijing ending up a smouldering, uninhabitable wasteland. :coffeepap

The only way anyone is invading anyone is if Nukes Became obsolete in totality... and when that day comes, I'll support notions of War with China. Until then, there is absolutely no validity to all of this, especially when we're the only reason their economy does so well.


Excuse me, but isn't the stated goal of Obama to end the days of Nuclear weapons? Yes, I think he has mentioned that a time or two.

j-mac
 
Please watch from 0:40 please.

Yeah, yeah, the only time you libs bring Reagan out is when you think that his words are in alignment with your thoughts or actions. Truth is though that they are truly not. Liberals speak all the time that words are out of context when their own words are used against them. Or say that what they said isn't what they meant because of someone not listening, or reading the entirety of their thoughts.

This is what you have done here my friend.

It is true that Reagan didn't like a world with Nuclear weapons pointed at each other, weapons that he knew could end the planet in the push of a button. But he wasn't a fool either. Out of that speech where he was talking about eliminating the Nuclear arsenals of the world, he also spoke about 'Trust but verify'....Why would you or the highly disingenuous Cris Matthews leave that part out? Certainly Reagan wasn't talking about us dismantling our Nuclear capabilities without substantial, and verifiable cuts from the rest of the world was he?

See, you liberals want us to believe if we only take the first step, if we become the example then like in the movies, they will come. Well, to me that is naive beyond belief, and if that is truly how you formulate your conclusions, and use hacks like Matthews from MSNBC to bolster a losing strategy in today's real world, then sir I not only disagree with you, but find it my obligation to work against such an America ending, destructive, and foolish folly.


j-mac
 
Last edited:
Yeah, yeah, the only time you libs bring Reagan out is when you think that his words are in alignment with your thoughts or actions. Truth is though that they are truly not. Liberals speak all the time that words are out of context when their own words are used against them. Or say that what they said isn't what they meant because of someone not listening, or reading the entirety of their thoughts.

This is what you have done here my friend.

It is true that Reagan didn't like a world with Nuclear weapons pointed at each other, weapons that he knew could end the planet in the push of a button. But he wasn't a fool either. Out of that speech where he was talking about eliminating the Nuclear arsenals of the world, he also spoke about 'Trust but verify'....Why would you or the highly disingenuous Cris Matthews leave that part out? Certainly Reagan wasn't talking about us dismantling our Nuclear capabilities without substantial, and verifiable cuts from the rest of the world was he?

See, you liberals want us to believe if we only take the first step, if we become the example then like in the movies, they will come. Well, to me that is naive beyond belief, and if that is truly how you formulate your conclusions, and use hacks like Matthews from MSNBC to bolster a losing strategy in today's real world, then sir I not only disagree with you, but find it my obligation to work against such an America ending, destructive, and foolish folly.


j-mac

That was some forum ownage right there ;)
 
Yeah, yeah, the only time you libs bring Reagan out is when you think that his words are in alignment with your thoughts or actions. Truth is though that they are truly not. Liberals speak all the time that words are out of context when their own words are used against them. Or say that what they said isn't what they meant because of someone not listening, or reading the entirety of their thoughts.

This is what you have done here my friend.

It is true that Reagan didn't like a world with Nuclear weapons pointed at each other, weapons that he knew could end the planet in the push of a button. But he wasn't a fool either. Out of that speech where he was talking about eliminating the Nuclear arsenals of the world, he also spoke about 'Trust but verify'....Why would you or the highly disingenuous Cris Matthews leave that part out? Certainly Reagan wasn't talking about us dismantling our Nuclear capabilities without substantial, and verifiable cuts from the rest of the world was he?

See, you liberals want us to believe if we only take the first step, if we become the example then like in the movies, they will come. Well, to me that is naive beyond belief, and if that is truly how you formulate your conclusions, and use hacks like Matthews from MSNBC to bolster a losing strategy in today's real world, then sir I not only disagree with you, but find it my obligation to work against such an America ending, destructive, and foolish folly.


j-mac

J-Mac, PLEASE Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew you'd bring up the Matthews card. I didn't use that clip because of Matthews ok, I used it, because you said the following:

Excuse me, but isn't the stated goal of Obama to end the days of Nuclear weapons? Yes, I think he has mentioned that a time or two.

j-mac

So was Reagans! That's all I used the clip for, to show you his stated goal was the same as Obamas. And lets not forget this:

AFP: Kissinger, former top US diplomats endorse START

WASHINGTON — Five former US secretaries of state called Wednesday for ratification of the landmark arms control treaty with Russia, saying it would continue a decades-long effort to make the world safer.

A joint article appearing in the Washington Post was signed by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell, secretaries of state for the past five Republican presidents.

"Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers," the diplomats wrote.

"That is why presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (Bush senior) negotiated the SALT I, START I and START II agreements. It is why president George W. Bush negotiated the Moscow Treaty... The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons.

And yet you sit there spouting your usual "Liberal This, Liberal That" nonsense, when I thought we had moved past that.

You are being highly hypocritical here.

Obama does not want to destroy the US. He does not wanna leave it defenseless, He will not take your nuclear weapons offline.

Relax.
 
J-Mac, PLEASE Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew you'd bring up the Matthews card.


Well then, you should stop underestimating me and debate like you know what is pap, and what is not. Matthews is an idiot, should I counter with Rush? They would be on the same par would they not?


I didn't use that clip because of Matthews ok, I used it, because you said the following:

So was Reagans! That's all I used the clip for, to show you his stated goal was the same as Obamas.

Yeah, now you come on, you put out that clip in hopes of getting me to stutter and capitulate, based on some pretty disingenuous comparison. Truth is that although Obama, and Reagan's goals of a Nuke free world may be the same in name, it is in name only. Their rhetoric, and path to get there couldn't be further apart.


While Reagan had a strong defense in mind while eliminating the worlds nukes, and furthering the goals of freedom, and democracy, Obama has pure weak kneed capitulation in true Chamberlin fashion as his template, and the world sees that weakness. Think about it, one path leads to America's strength, and leadership, and the other, leads to weakness, destruction of the mere thought that America is exceptional, and ultimate devaluation of America as a leader in the world as a force for good.

And yet you sit there spouting your usual "Liberal This, Liberal That" nonsense, when I thought we had moved past that.

I am always up for reasonable ideas, does that mean that I must jettison my values in order for you to think me reasoned?

You are being highly hypocritical here.

I don't think I am, but you are more than welcome to point out how so.


Obama does not want to destroy the US. He does not wanna leave it defenseless, He will not take your nuclear weapons offline.

Relax.

And the reason you can say that with any certainty is because the political pressure will not allow him to just unilaterally do these things, or judging by his words in the past years would suggest differently. Start with Dreams of my Father, and the Anti Colonial message you have there, and move on with unbiased eyes, and you will see the plans regardless of the day to day rhetoric he deceives you with.


j-mac
 
Well then, you should stop underestimating me and debate like you know what is pap, and what is not. Matthews is an idiot, should I counter with Rush? They would be on the same par would they not?

I wasn't using anything Chris Matthews said as evidence. That point is null and void, I simply needed to use a clip which had Reagan saying what he said.


Yeah, now you come on, you put out that clip in hopes of getting me to stutter and capitulate, based on some pretty disingenuous comparison. Truth is that although Obama, and Reagan's goals of a Nuke free world may be the same in name, it is in name only. Their rhetoric, and path to get there couldn't be further apart.

While Reagan had a strong defense in mind while eliminating the worlds nukes, and furthering the goals of freedom, and democracy, Obama has pure weak kneed capitulation in true Chamberlin fashion as his template, and the world sees that weakness. Think about it, one path leads to America's strength, and leadership, and the other, leads to weakness, destruction of the mere thought that America is exceptional, and ultimate devaluation of America as a leader in the world as a force for good.

Partisan grandstanding nonsense.



am always up for reasonable ideas, does that mean that I must jettison my values in order for you to think me reasoned?

I don't think I am, but you are more than welcome to point out how so.

And the reason you can say that with any certainty is because the political pressure will not allow him to just unilaterally do these things, or judging by his words in the past years would suggest differently. Start with Dreams of my Father, and the Anti Colonial message you have there, and move on with unbiased eyes, and you will see the plans regardless of the day to day rhetoric he deceives you with.


j-mac

So you completely ignore the fact that Republicans from days past, many republicans now, and simply many people believe It's a good treaty, because you know OH SO MUCH MORE then they do, and you obviously know exactly how Obamas trying to make America defenseless, and make it a force for evil in the world... or something, and your evidence for this is your own views.

Reagan, And Obamas treaties aren't that disimilar, and yes, it's a real shame you won't be able to Nuke Sweden.

Get a grip man, please. You said simply that Obamas stated goal, was a nuclear free world. You never said he wanted to make America a force for evil, make America defenseless, or anything else.

I simply showed you, that it was Reagans stated goal as well. You decided to bring up the whole Liberal Liberal Liberal nonsense you always do, when you know you've been proven wrong.

Who doesn't want a nuclear free world? Man shouldn't have the power to destroy the only home we have.
 
Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be catastrophic | Reuters



Congress has raised the debt ceiling six times in the last three years to keep pace with our deteriorating financial situation. It is currently pegged at $14.3 trillion, but to put this in perspective, a little over three years ago the debt limit was less than $9 trillion.

It seems the Democrats solution (yes, I blame the Democrats for the last 6 increases, as they were in control and the vote was along party lines), to the problem of spending beyond our means... is to simply increase or credit limit and keep spending.

The GOP wants to end this practice, and the Obama administration considers that possibly catastrophic. Typical.

You should probably get a better understanding about the process before assigning blame.

Your post only reveals your own confusion about the issue.
 
350px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.png
 
Oh Palease!

So you might have a few less Nukes, that's gonna be worth China invading and Beijing ending up a smouldering, uninhabitable wasteland. :coffeepap
Given the lack of testing any ICBM's, the dismantling over decades of our arsenal and the age of our aresenal, I'd be surprised if any of those nukes worked at all.
 
I wasn't using anything Chris Matthews said as evidence. That point is null and void, I simply needed to use a clip which had Reagan saying what he said.


You type "Reagan ending Nukes" into Google and come back with over 1 million hits, and Matthews was who you chose in a partisan debate? poor choice man.


Partisan grandstanding nonsense.


You can't address it in an intellectually honest way so you dismiss it. I see.


So you completely ignore the fact that Republicans from days past, many republicans now, and simply many people believe It's a good treaty, because you know OH SO MUCH MORE then they do, and you obviously know exactly how Obamas trying to make America defenseless, and make it a force for evil in the world... or something, and your evidence for this is your own views.


Let's get a couple of things straight right here, and right now k? First, I never claimed, nor do I think that I know more than those working on this. Second, you are misrepresenting my thoughts and words here in a disingenuous fashion, stop it. And lastly, you are projecting here. This is debate, you are not going to win anything should your argument prevail, and the only evidence I have seen you put forth are your own views, so?

Reagan, And Obamas treaties aren't that disimilar,

then what was the rub against letting the duly elected new congress have a look at it? If it was that good, and straight forward, a week would have made no difference. But no, Obama's narcism wouldn't let that happen would it?

and yes, it's a real shame you won't be able to Nuke Sweden.

Oh let's see, what was that you accused me of?...... Oh yeah..."Partisan grandstanding nonsense." uh huh.....:roll:


Get a grip man, please. You said simply that Obamas stated goal, was a nuclear free world. You never said he wanted to make America a force for evil, make America defenseless, or anything else.

True, but their methods of achieving that are so dissimilar as to make one dangerous.

I simply showed you, that it was Reagans stated goal as well. You decided to bring up the whole Liberal Liberal Liberal nonsense you always do, when you know you've been proven wrong.

whatever helps you sleep at night dude.....:coffeepap

Who doesn't want a nuclear free world? Man shouldn't have the power to destroy the only home we have.

OMG, really? Thats it? Weak man.....:2wave:


j-mac
 
This is crazy. this would be like me saying every time I get close to the limit on my credit cards, instead of paying them down, I call and have them raise the limits.....

j-mac

No, its more like as soon as you get close to the debt limit you call the bank and tell them you won't pay.... and then, to rub it in, you make it known that you recently turned down a raise (deferred scheduled revenue increases by cutting taxes, particularly to a group of people for which the tax reduction provides you will near zero benefit) that might have helped pay the bill. Unfortuately this has to happen (and will happen), to do otherwise is catasthrophic to our fledging economy.
 
You type "Reagan ending Nukes" into Google and come back with over 1 million hits, and Matthews was who you chose in a partisan debate? poor choice man.





You can't address it in an intellectually honest way so you dismiss it. I see.





Let's get a couple of things straight right here, and right now k? First, I never claimed, nor do I think that I know more than those working on this. Second, you are misrepresenting my thoughts and words here in a disingenuous fashion, stop it. And lastly, you are projecting here. This is debate, you are not going to win anything should your argument prevail, and the only evidence I have seen you put forth are your own views, so?



then what was the rub against letting the duly elected new congress have a look at it? If it was that good, and straight forward, a week would have made no difference. But no, Obama's narcism wouldn't let that happen would it?



Oh let's see, what was that you accused me of?...... Oh yeah..."Partisan grandstanding nonsense." uh huh.....:roll:




True, but their methods of achieving that are so dissimilar as to make one dangerous.



whatever helps you sleep at night dude.....:coffeepap



OMG, really? Thats it? Weak man.....:2wave:


j-mac

ok, so regardless of all this petty bickering.

How does Obamas treaty in particular harm the United States? And how does it differ from other treaties. Why does Reagan get a pass on wanting a nuclear free world, but Obama doesn't?
 
Please enlighten us, oh high horse conservative partisan.

Please show us the course of events, using Mutually Assured Destruction as the foundation of a war with the west, that would cause China to invade Canada :coffeepap

Two words - Molsen Canadian!

Nuff said.. :)


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom