Even More Reason to fear Hilbama

Wildalaska

Moderator
Yep, lets just unilaterally beat our swords into plowshares, ban weapons and toss money at folks while singing kumbaya!

Lets make the world into Chicago!!!! Yep, disarmed and free $$$ for all

This is my own little chicken little rant. A Dem President at this point would spell the end of America...we havent been in such danger since Hubert Humphrey ran....Mr. Dobson and the rest of your ilk, make sure you run home if Rudy wins to protest and protect your right to guns and womb control...of course with Hillbama, there wont be an America left for wombs or guns anyway.

Hows that one? Ya like? I've joined the ranks of the doomites!:D

Here...read idiocy at its height.

Obama urges eliminating nuclear weapons

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago

Democrat Barack Obama called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons Tuesday and offered his early opposition to the Iraq war as evidence of sound judgment that trumps his lack of Washington experience.

Obama argued that U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists. The United States shouldn't unilaterally disarm, he said, but it must work with other nations to phase out weapons and control atomic material.

"Here's what I'll say as president: 'America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'" Obama said.

"The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons — it's to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists," the Illinois senator said. Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a a single presidency.

The Republican National Committee criticized the proposal as unsafe and an example of Obama "playing to the fringe elements of his party." But the concept has the backing of at least two former Republican secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.

Obama's address marked the fifth anniversary of an anti-war rally where he announced his opposition to invading Iraq. He predicted then that the United States would get bogged down in an unending war that would inflame world anger.

Obama was an Illinois legislator contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate when Congress voted in October 2002 to give President Bush the authority to use military force to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In his speech Tuesday, Obama criticized Bush, the media and especially Congress, arguing that they failed the nation in the rush to war.

"Let's be clear: Without that vote, there would be no war," Obama said, taking a swipe at his Democratic rivals who were in the Senate and voted for the war — Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden — but never mentioning them by name.

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the administration, the media and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002," Obama said. "And we need to ask those who voted for the war: How can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"

Obama said Congress had failed U.S. citizens on Iraq, despite a law passed after Vietnam that was meant to serve as a check on the president's ability to take the country to war.

"No law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone," he said.

Obama cites his early opposition to war as evidence that he has the judgment to be president despite arriving in Washington less than three years ago. He plans at least 10 stops in Iowa this week where he will try to drive home that idea.

But he has sometimes acknowledged the Iraq vote wasn't a simple issue. In 2004, he wouldn't criticize presidential nominee John Kerry for the vote, saying, "What would I have done? I don't know."

His message was blunted Tuesday by Clinton's announcement that she had bested Obama's campaign fundraising this summer by bringing in $22 million for the primary election season.

Obama's comments on Iraq and nuclear weapons were part of a broader call for an aggressive new approach to international affairs. As president, Obama said, he would:

_Personally conduct negotiations with other nations, including hostile countries.

_Deliver an annual "state of the world" speech to assess the country's foreign policy concerns.

_Give the director of national intelligence a fixed term of office, so he could not be replaced by the president for political reasons.

_Fight global poverty and double foreign assistance to $50 billion a year.

A spokeswoman for Edwards pointed out that the former North Carolina senator called for the elimination of nuclear weapons months ago.

"If you need any more proof that John Edwards is shaping the race for the Democratic nomination, you don't need to look any further than Senator Obama, who has followed Edwards' lead on heath care, poverty, and today, eliminating nuclear weapons. Next thing you know, hell be rooting for the Tar Heels," said spokeswoman Colleen Murray.


WildgivemeabreakalreadyAlaska TM
 
I don't see what's so bad about this. We should work towards getting rid of nuclear weapons. We probably will never achieve this goal but we should work towards it. He said:
The United States shouldn't unilaterally disarm

What's so bad about that?

Also, he's right that we should still be focused on Russia. Even if terrorists did get a nuclear bomb, they couldn't completely destroy the US or the world. Actually they couldn't even come close to doing it. Russia could do that and lately they have become more aggressive....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/30438742-121e-11dc-b963-000b5df10621.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixgl6U8cd_Ykk3CAjqcH5pfz9rog


I personally think Rudy is much more dangerous than any of the democrats.
 
Obama urges eliminating nuclear weapons

You can't un-invent 'em!:eek: We opened that Pandora's Box and it can't be closed.

We'll always need a credible nuclear deterrant--which isn't just having nukes: it's also having the will to use them.

Sure, we should reduce our arsenal to save $$$, but never to the point that our enemies could have a rational expectation of beating us through a first strike, sabotage, etc.

More "feel good" politics. Yep, nukes are horrible on a scale most can't comprehend. Suck it up and accept the fact that MAD works--except when dealing with relegious nut jobs who think their reward is in Paradise. You can't deter those determined to die....
 
I was in NYC under the Rudy regime. I saw the "turn in illegal gun owners" signs posted in the subway stations. A reward too. Can I get $1000.00 for turning in WildIwanttobeinprisonAlaska if we get Rudy?
 
Let's see here....some part of 1945 comes to mind. We faced our last head on enemy and it took 2 nukes to stop them when they were mostly beat. Another enemy also determined to beat us to the point of killing themselves will take at least that, and something tells me that we might be fighting them at full strength at the time.

I don't think it's worth taking the risk just to be happy lovey peaceniks.
 
Rob308 ~

What's wrong with that? Ummm, here, lemme translate it into gunboard-speak for you...

"The best way to keep America[ns] safe is not to threaten [criminals] with [guns] — it's to keep [guns] away from [criminals]," the Illinois senator said.

Is the problem a bit more obvious now? The scale changes, but the logical and logistical problems remain.

pax
 
Well, let's see here...
The United States shouldn't unilaterally disarm, he said, but it must work with other nations to phase out weapons and control atomic material.

One of the complaints leveled by third-world countries, such as Iran, North Korea and some time ago, China, was that if the U.S. insisted it was fine for western nations to have nukes, then their own states should have them in their own arsenals too. Goose/Gander.

"Here's what I'll say as president: 'America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'" Obama said.

So, without nuclear weapons, what will deter some nations from invading weaker neighbors or other nations that injured them economically? Nukes alone should not be the sole focus of such desires since a biological attack could be much worse in the long run for all of us. Without nuclear weapons the Chinese, if they desired, could probably start another "Asian co-prosperity sphere" in the western pacific, much like Japan tried about 75 years ago. And today we lack the naval and military forces to stop it. Hell, another Pearl Harbor would probably have the left screaming it was all our fault anyhow.

But he has sometimes acknowledged the Iraq vote wasn't a simple issue. In 2004, he wouldn't criticize presidential nominee John Kerry for the vote, saying, "What would I have done? I don't know."

Let me see if I have this straight. Two years after the vote authorizing military action, Obama didn't know how he'd vote. In 2007, five years later he now knows that he'd vote against it. We can't afford a commander-in-chief that can't make up his mind, much less take more than a full term in office to do it!

Personally conduct negotiations with other nations, including hostile countries.
This misses the point that the most hostile threat we face is from a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the initials A.Q. It also misses the point that some hostile countries may have what we call an illegitimate government (coup, stolen elections, military junta, etc.) yet Obama would legitimize them by negotiations. :rolleyes: Someone sign him up for Diplomacy 101!

Give the director of national intelligence a fixed term of office, so he could not be replaced by the president for political reasons.
Does that mean a director who decides the administration's policies are wrong can leak them to the press and still not be fired? If the director has a different ideaology about dealing with a threat and refuses to provide assessments, you can't fire him for insuborination, fearing accusations of "political firing" or congressional inquiries? This would be a cure worse than the disease.

Fight global poverty and double foreign assistance to $50 billion a year.
Obama's party likes to whine about the money we're spending in Iraq that could go to education, health-care, infrastructure and programs to feed the children in our country. But Obama still wants to double what we give away, often to leaders of corrupt countries. Yeah, he's a deep thinker, this guy. :barf:

To me, he's an empty suit with no more conviction than his primary opponent.
 
McCain also wants a Christian President. :D Somebody on his staff needs to take that shovel away from him before he gets too deep and has a cave in and hurts himself.

Just think we have 13 more months to go. :(
 
Can I get $1000.00 for turning in WildIwanttobeinprisonAlaska if we get Rudy?

The reward is only $10 for me. :)

But hey, just think guns guns guns...thats all that matters to some folks. Me, I want to have a country first, I'll worry about guns later.

WildlifeischoicesAlaska TM
 
I did not mean to imply that I support Hillbama. It is just that I figure I would be in prison for having the silly idea that the 2A applies to me under either Rudyberg or Hillbama. If I am in prison I don't care about the authoritarian style differences the "people" imposed on me.

The UN can try to reduce nuclear profileration, but so far they seem to be doing just as you would expect from the left, try to hurt good countries and empower bad countries. The Rudyberg side treats citizens like they are all the same. Good gun owners are the same as crimminals. So I think that I will be treated very badly under Rudyberg or Hillbama. The nuclear profileration issue will just be a larger scale version of the same ideologies. The only solution is if there is someone better to take the Rudyberg ticket.
 
The only solution is if there is someone better to take the Rudyberg ticket.

There isnt right now.. So the goal is to influence Rudy, not ensure the election of a dangerous person to our very survival.

I hope Fred can show us something.

WildhesnotcomingoffasawinneryetAlaska TM
 
Rudy’s ridiculous, Fred’s a fud, Mitt’s a miss and Paul's a puke. Won’t even go into the Dems.

Maybe I’ll go work on a happy/joy thread!
 
It says something when these two are major national candidates at all. Sociology is a science that tells you which mountain you're going to crash into. There's nothing you can do with the knowledge.


The fact that Hillary and Obama are deemed credible candidates for the office of the President means the end is near. And by near I mean <100 years.


Vote however you want, but you're not going to put Humpty back together again in this universe. Where does it all end? We'll see (at least the first half of it).
 
Obama and Hillary are not all that similar, and Hillary is the only one with a legitimate chance to win the general election anyway, which is somewhat encouraging. I don't worry that Hillary would put our defense at risk, she is just to damn mean for that, Obama wouldn't mean to but he would because he is stupid and inexperienced.

One of two scenarios is likely. The republicans nominate Guliani and he beats Hillary or the republicans nominate anyone else, including Fred, and they lose to Hillary. So that's your choice Hillary or Guliani, I chose Hillary.
 
It is interesting to watch the polls. Some polls tally every person contacted while others only tally likely primary voters. When all voters are polled, Rudy comes out with a slight lead. When likely primary voters are tallied Fred comes out in the lead. I read of speculation that Rudy was leading because of his celebrity after 911 and that only the likely primary voters were paying close attention to issues and candidate positions right now.

Hillary has a huge lead by either poll type among the Democrat candidates. But, she has huge negatives in the general voter polls. Although I think it is silly to judge someone on such a non-policy topic, she seemed to have a Howard Dean moment with her recent interview on Fox News Channel. She does not seem to have quite the teflon coating that Bill had, though she seems to escape the scandals pretty much intact.

Edit to add: Rasmussen is the poll that tabulates likely primary voters for the party nominations. The other polls are usually registered voters and are not as accurate in indicating primary results.



Rasmussen Reports polling has recently shown Fred Thompson leading the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination while most other polls place Rudy Giuliani in the lead and Thompson in second.

The difference is primarily the result of the fact that Rasmussen screens for Likely Primary Voters while others do not. Understanding this difference leads one to conclude that the conventional wisdom is currently overestimating Giuliani’s strength as a potential nominee.

For example, the latest Gallup Poll of adults shows Rudy Giuliani leading Thompson by eight percentage points, 30% to 22%. That poll also shows John McCain in third place with 18% of the vote, well ahead of Mitt Romney at 7%.

But, of course, we know that all adults don’t show and vote… especially in a party primary. When Gallup considers the results “Among Republicans Who are Extremely Likely to Vote in the Primary/Caucus in Their State,” Giuliani’s lead shrinks to three points, 29% to 26%.

It gets even more interesting when Gallup combines their last four surveys and takes a look at the more informed voters. Gallup says “Indeed, among Republicans who have an opinion of the four leading candidates -- less than half the party base -- the ballot looks very different, with Thompson at 33% support, Giuliani at 26%, Romney at 15%, and McCain at 10%.”
 
Last edited:
Hillary is on a up swing right now in the polls. She is a several points ahead of Guliani, Fred and McCain. She is gaining momentum while everyone else is declining.

About the article I would have to agree that this country should take the lead in getting rid of its nuclear arsenal. That is just common sense.
 
Back
Top