• 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.

Russian president smacks down Romney

So what do we do when someone else calls our country their number one threat? We demand an immediate response from our government denying their allegations!!

But if someone over here says the same about their country, they better just shut up and stay out.

Come on lets try to have a standard.
 
It's a very relevant response. The very people that worship Reagan are having a panic attack over Obama talking to the Russians. They're having a panic attack that he's going to negotiate away our nukes, which, by the way, was Reagan's dream.

So was missile defense, to make nukes unnecessary.

Reagan would not have agreed to Obama's nuclear treaty, by the way, as he had no intention of giving up nukes while the Russians kept theirs -- so just because Obama made a treaty diminishing our nukes, it doesn't equate him with Reagan.
 
It's a very relevant response. The very people that worship Reagan are having a panic attack over Obama talking to the Russians. They're having a panic attack that he's going to negotiate away our nukes, which, by the way, was Reagan's dream.

Obama might negotiate with the Russians (as did Reagan)? He might fulfill Reagan's dream (he won't that's useless right wing hyperbole)? Terrible!

Obama will probably give in to whatever the Russians want, for example any missile defense systems the Russians don't like...gone. Reagan on the other hand had a backbone and in the Iceland meeting the USSR strongly wanted Reagan to give up on the Strategic Defense Initiative, Reagan refused. Reagan wanted a defense against a nuclear missile attack, because it made him sick to think once the USSR’s (or whoever) missiles were launched there was no way to fight back and stop the nuclear missiles from killing millions.
 
Obama will probably give in to whatever the Russians want, for example any missile defense systems the Russians don't like...gone. Reagan on the other hand had a backbone and in the Iceland meeting the USSR strongly wanted Reagan to give up on the Strategic Defense Initiative, Reagan refused. Reagan wanted a defense against a nuclear missile attack, because it made him sick to think once the USSR’s (or whoever) missiles were launched there was no way to fight back and stop the nuclear missiles from killing millions.

This may be the funniest statement I have heard all week. You are truly brainwashed by right wing media.
 
I heard the mic picked up Obama sneaking a fart during a press conference today, he must not really care about global warming. that damn liberal. Reagan would know what to do.
 
It's a very relevant response. The very people that worship Reagan are having a panic attack over Obama talking to the Russians. They're having a panic attack that he's going to negotiate away our nukes, which, by the way, was Reagan's dream.

Obama might negotiate with the Russians (as did Reagan)? He might fulfill Reagan's dream (he won't that's useless right wing hyperbole)? Terrible!

In the interest of clarity, I must point out that I am a conservative who has a desire to see nukes reduced all around the world. But I haven't seen any effective foreign policy decision or action from Obama that gives me confidence that he has a lick of ability in dealing with other countries...unless the course has already been laid out for him by previous Presidents, as is the case with the war on terror.
 
Well, only with someone who thinks at your intelligence level would create a delusional assumption after only hearing Obama speak one sentence.

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks.
 
What the hell are you talking about? I'm starting to think people post like that just to hide the fact that they don't know anything about the topic, but they know they don't like someone! I mean seriously what does "suck his dick mean?" It could mean anything of course, which is exactly what you need it to mean because you can't point to anything specific.

Or what about "pissant russian" what the hell does that mean? Again, it serves no purpose except to show that A) You don't understand the topic, ie US-Russian relations and B) regardless of a lack of understanding you know you don't like.

"people post like that"??? People post like what?

"piss-ant Russian" = the Russian President...a man who doesn't fart without Putin's permission...a man who is a nobody.

"suck his dick" = Medvedev's only job is to play up to Obama...suck him off, that is...to make Obama think he's doing something effective.

Meanwhile, Putin calls the shots. If Obama was smart he'd dismiss Medvedev and only deal with Putin...but Obama's not smart. Plus, Putin can tactically and strategically run circles around Obama. Obama is a lightweight on the international scene and everyone knows it.

So...here we have a nobody mouthing off about Romney when nobody should care what he thinks about our Presidential candidates...or what he has to say about them...and we have Obama in bed with the nobody.


Believe me...we are truly screwed with Obama in charge.
 
This may be the funniest statement I have heard all week. You are truly brainwashed by right wing media.

Actually the comments about Reagan are facts and part of history. The Obama comments are opinion.
 
Looks like we missed the chance to elect a modern day version of Benjamin Franklin.

Gingrich has the experience we are looking for. He just wasn't as pure as some would like. Well, Benjamin Franklin wasn't pure either.

Benjamin Franklin would throw up if he was able to hear you compare him to Gingrich.
 
In the interest of clarity, I must point out that I am a conservative who has a desire to see nukes reduced all around the world. But I haven't seen any effective foreign policy decision or action from Obama that gives me confidence that he has a lick of ability in dealing with other countries...unless the course has already been laid out for him by previous Presidents, as is the case with the war on terror.

I haven't seen that from Obama either, to be honest.

But I find it funny how Conservatives are falling over with outrage over his willingness to talk to the Russians.
 
In the interest of clarity, I must point out that I am a conservative who has a desire to see nukes reduced all around the world. But I haven't seen any effective foreign policy decision or action from Obama that gives me confidence that he has a lick of ability in dealing with other countries...unless the course has already been laid out for him by previous Presidents, as is the case with the war on terror.

Seriously? What foreign policy mistakes do you think Obama has made? Was he wrong to help take out Gaddafi? Was he wrong to ramp up drone attacks in Pakistan which allowed us to eliminate much of al Qaeda's leadership? Was he wrong in ordering the execution of Osama bin Laden? Hasn't he had far more success than his predecessor in obtaining international cooperation on sanctions against Iran? Did he not negotiate a productive trade pact with South Korea? Was he wrong to remove combat troops from Iraq? Has he not improved relations with our European allies? Did he not diffuse tensions with Russia over the ballistic missile stations?

Post your gripes here.
 
Obama will probably give in to whatever the Russians want, for example any missile defense systems the Russians don't like...gone. Reagan on the other hand had a backbone and in the Iceland meeting the USSR strongly wanted Reagan to give up on the Strategic Defense Initiative, Reagan refused. Reagan wanted a defense against a nuclear missile attack, because it made him sick to think once the USSR’s (or whoever) missiles were launched there was no way to fight back and stop the nuclear missiles from killing millions.

The problem with Bush's missile defense plan was where the missiles would be. From a Russian point of view, American missiles in Poland look very much like Russian missiles in Cuba. Coupled with Bush's rhetoric about extending NATO into places that were part of the USSR. There's also the Russian experience in WWI and WWII of having Germany right on their front door, and Russia's long history of contentious relations with the Poles (look up Minin and Pozharsky, if you don't know who they are).

What would the Conservative response be to a Russian missile defense going up in Guatemala? I can't imagine it would be "Oh, OK."
 
I was in the military when Reagan was 'fighting' the E-Vile Empire and then his cuddling up with them. 'Conservatives' howled in anger over any American President talking to the very folks Reagan gained a great deal of popularity from bashing. We were in the middle of a HUGE deficit building everything and anything Congress could dream up for the military,(even if the military didn't ask for it), so any talk of peace would endanger that spending spree. They didn't want Reagan discussing anything of substance because they considered Gorby a snake oil salesman and Reagan a country bumpkin. As a poster here has said of Obama, Reagan showed absolutely nothing in an ability to hold his own internationally on major treaty discussions, he was good at using a teleprompter and memorizing his lines for TV, but having to face questions he couldn't script... (didn't some 'conservatives' bash Obama for his use of a teleprompter????)

There will always be a hard core right wingnut bunch who want to see demons everywhere, it keeps 'defense' spending up. It is a knee jerk response to attack any democrat as soft on terrorism and 'gutting the military' if he cuts so much as a dime from the 'defense' budget.

As far as fellow travelers go these days, Putin and his cutthroat, chrony cahooting, ruthless profiteering seems a better match to a Vulture Capitalist than a community organizer. Perhaps the Russians see Romney as an International Competitor and don't want him running the USofA.
 
I haven't seen that from Obama either, to be honest.

But I find it funny how Conservatives are falling over with outrage over his willingness to talk to the Russians.

It's not that he is willing to talk to them...it is the weakness he shows when he talks to anyone.
 
Seriously? What foreign policy mistakes do you think Obama has made? Was he wrong to help take out Gaddafi? Was he wrong to ramp up drone attacks in Pakistan which allowed us to eliminate much of al Qaeda's leadership? Was he wrong in ordering the execution of Osama bin Laden? Hasn't he had far more success than his predecessor in obtaining international cooperation on sanctions against Iran? Did he not negotiate a productive trade pact with South Korea? Was he wrong to remove combat troops from Iraq? Has he not improved relations with our European allies? Did he not diffuse tensions with Russia over the ballistic missile stations?

Post your gripes here.

Okay. I'm going to group some of your questions together because the answer is the same for all of them:

Was he wrong to ramp up drone attacks in Pakistan which allowed us to eliminate much of al Qaeda's leadership?
Was he wrong in ordering the execution of Osama bin Laden?
Was he wrong to remove combat troops from Iraq?

He was not wrong. He was not particularly innovative or creative either. These actions were already initiated by Bush. The only good thing Obama did was not screw these things up.


Was he wrong to help take out Gaddafi?

Yes. He forced our country into a situation we had no business being in. We will yet see how mistaken he was.


Hasn't he had far more success than his predecessor in obtaining international cooperation on sanctions against Iran?

A useless course of action. A sure indication that Obama hasn't the ability to handle the situation.


Did he not negotiate a productive trade pact with South Korea?

A child could have negotiated that trade pact...seeing how willing the Koreans were.


Has he not improved relations with our European allies?

Has he? I don't see any indication that he has.


Did he not diffuse tensions with Russia over the ballistic missile stations?

By backing down. Good work there, don't you think?


If the course wasn't already laid out for him, Obama has ranged from being ineffective to being a loser.
 
Okay. I'm going to group some of your questions together because the answer is the same for all of them:

Was he wrong to ramp up drone attacks in Pakistan which allowed us to eliminate much of al Qaeda's leadership?
Was he wrong in ordering the execution of Osama bin Laden?
Was he wrong to remove combat troops from Iraq?

He was not wrong. He was not particularly innovative or creative either. These actions were already initiated by Bush. The only good thing Obama did was not screw these things up.

You are mistaken. Obama oredered a large expansion of drone attacks and he also ramped up our forces in Afghanistan which aided the effort. He did follow through on the Iraq timeline that Bush was forced to agree to.

Was he wrong to help take out Gaddafi?

Yes. He forced our country into a situation we had no business being in. We will yet see how mistaken he was.

I disagree. Gaddafi, unlike Saddam, sponsored terror attacks against US citizens. He was actively slaughtering his own citizens. He was mentally unstable. We helped take him out and didn't lose a single American life in the process.


Hasn't he had far more success than his predecessor in obtaining international cooperation on sanctions against Iran?

A useless course of action. A sure indication that Obama hasn't the ability to handle the situation.

The jury is out on how effective sanctions will be, but it's the only realistic option we have at the moment and Obama has done a very good job rallying support from key countries like China and Russia.


Did he not negotiate a productive trade pact with South Korea?

A child could have negotiated that trade pact...seeing how willing the Koreans were.

What a silly statement. If it was so easy why didn't we have one before? Was Bush less competent than a child?

Has he not improved relations with our European allies?

Has he? I don't see any indication that he has.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Our standing in Europe has improved immensely.

Did he not diffuse tensions with Russia over the ballistic missile stations?

By backing down. Good work there, don't you think?

Yes, it was a good move not to be a provocative prick for no reason.

If the course wasn't already laid out for him, Obama has ranged from being ineffective to being a loser.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I certainly prefer a world without bin Laden and Gaddafi, with strong relations with our allies, with productive free trade agreements, and with strong sanctions against but no war with Iran.
 
The problem with Bush's missile defense plan was where the missiles would be. From a Russian point of view, American missiles in Poland look very much like Russian missiles in Cuba. Coupled with Bush's rhetoric about extending NATO into places that were part of the USSR. There's also the Russian experience in WWI and WWII of having Germany right on their front door, and Russia's long history of contentious relations with the Poles (look up Minin and Pozharsky, if you don't know who they are).

What would the Conservative response be to a Russian missile defense going up in Guatemala? I can't imagine it would be "Oh, OK."

Cuban missiles were nuclear and offensive weapons. That is different than a non-nuclear defensive system. Although I must add that for many years after the Russians withdrew the missiles out of Cuba they still frequently sent bombers capable of carrying nukes to Cuba throughout the Cold War.
 
Seriously? What foreign policy mistakes do you think Obama has made? Was he wrong to help take out Gaddafi? Was he wrong to ramp up drone attacks in Pakistan which allowed us to eliminate much of al Qaeda's leadership? Was he wrong in ordering the execution of Osama bin Laden? Hasn't he had far more success than his predecessor in obtaining international cooperation on sanctions against Iran? Did he not negotiate a productive trade pact with South Korea? Was he wrong to remove combat troops from Iraq? Has he not improved relations with our European allies? Did he not diffuse tensions with Russia over the ballistic missile stations?

Post your gripes here.

Obama had nothing to do with Gadaffi. He had nothing to do with Bin Laden, last time I checked, there was photographic evidence showing Obama sitting in a room watching a TV while Seal team 6 got Bin Laden. Just like Bush didn't get Saddam, some soldiers did. He didn't improve relations with European allies, he went on a world apology tour.

No, he didn't do much of what you listed. If you consider "diffusing Russia" by caving in, yea I guess he did that. One thing he has shown, he can bow to anyone.

One thing I have always been supportive of, peace through strength. If you show strength and get people to respect you like that, you are respected. If you give people what they want by bending over and taking it in the ass, there is no respect, but foreign countries will sure love you for it.
 
Last edited:
Captain Courtesy ONLY hands out warnings to people that express liberal views on this forum which is an obvious abuse of power, kiss my ass. Are you g0nna ban me!? You mean I will need to make another account? Oh my god, the tragedy!
 
You are mistaken. Obama oredered a large expansion of drone attacks and he also ramped up our forces in Afghanistan which aided the effort. He did follow through on the Iraq timeline that Bush was forced to agree to.



I disagree. Gaddafi, unlike Saddam, sponsored terror attacks against US citizens. He was actively slaughtering his own citizens. He was mentally unstable. We helped take him out and didn't lose a single American life in the process.




The jury is out on how effective sanctions will be, but it's the only realistic option we have at the moment and Obama has done a very good job rallying support from key countries like China and Russia.




What a silly statement. If it was so easy why didn't we have one before? Was Bush less competent than a child?



Then you haven't been paying attention. Our standing in Europe has improved immensely.



Yes, it was a good move not to be a provocative prick for no reason.



You're entitled to your opinion, but I certainly prefer a world without bin Laden and Gaddafi, with strong relations with our allies, with productive free trade agreements, and with strong sanctions against but no war with Iran.


I have a particular pet peeve in forum posts: I don't like it when one answers a post by using individual quotes of snippets of a member's statements and then answering them....kind of like soundbites. If we both keep doing this, soon we'll end up losing our focus. Now, I'm not criticizing you for doing this, I'm just telling you this so you'll understand why I won't address your post.
 
Obama had nothing to do with Gadaffi. He had nothing to do with Bin Laden, last time I checked, there was photographic evidence showing Obama sitting in a room watching a TV while Seal team 6 got Bin Laden. Just like Bush didn't get Saddam, some soldiers did. He didn't improve relations with European allies, he went on a world apology tour.

No, he didn't do much of what you listed. If you consider "diffusing Russia" by caving in, yea I guess he did that. One thing he has shown, he can bow to anyone.

One thing I have always been supportive of, peace through strength. If you show strength and get people to respect you like that, you are respected. If you give people what they want by bending over and taking it in the ass, there is no respect, but foreign countries will sure love you for it.

Except that ultimately, they won't love you...they'll despise you.
 
If you show strength and get people to respect you like that, you are respected.

Do you think that this line of thinking is practical in the world today? "Strength" and "Respect" no longer go hand-in-hand in foreign relations imo.

On the contrary, some would argue that attempting to gain respect through strength is partially to blame for our foreign policy issues over the past decade. I don't know if I'd agree that it's completely to blame, but it's certainly an interesting debate topic.
 
Last edited:
Of course Medvedev is tossing a verbal attack on Romney. Romney's political opponent, Obama, just signaled he would take it easy on him after the election. Re-electing Obama will be good for Medvedev politically. But Im sure this is something he already knows.
 
Looks like we missed the chance to elect a modern day version of Benjamin Franklin.

Gingrich has the experience we are looking for. He just wasn't as pure as some would like. Well, Benjamin Franklin wasn't pure either.

Gingrich is the Hillary Clinton of the Republican Party. I suspect that those behind the scenes don't trust him to carry out their hidden purposes. So Romney is a White lawn jockey.
 
Back
Top Bottom