Mr. Oboma's Connections

[kat8585]

I'm still waiting for your answer to Butero's question.

Let me know how that goes.

I'm waiting for your answer to his question..

[forrestkc]

Hammers and toilet seats are not combat weapons. You will have to do better than that. He didn't say he wants to reduce waste. He said he wants to reduce funding for combat weapons.

He was not coming from the position of thinking there were better ways to spend money than on space. He was coming from the mindset of most liberals, opposition to increases in weaponry. In other words, he wants to lead the world by example in the naive hopes they will follow his lead and disarm. Makes one feel real safe having a leader with such confidence in nations like China. It is kind of like the Clinton administration believing the North Koreans wouldn't use nuclear technology we provided them to make weapons.

We need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves from nations that have nukes. It is a fear of reprisals that keep them from attacking us. If we dismantle what we have, they will be more likely to attack us. Especially if we have a weak leader in place like Barak Hussein Obama.

There is no reason any nuclear weapons should become unaccounted for. The fuel in them could be resold for civilian reactor use? Is that the best you can do to defend this obvious incompetence?

I was being tongue-in-cheek in my responses. At any rate:

1. When did Obama make the blanket statement that he wants to reduce funding for combat weapons in general?

2. We have just under 10,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled. China has about 200. Pakistan has between 30 and 80. North Korea has less than 10. So lets say we reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile to a couple of thousand. Now lets say that China gets some maniacal dictator running it in 10 years. Do you honestly think that the fact that we will still have ten times the number of nuclear warheads they have would not be a deterrent?

Now, lets look at the flip side of this. Say we go to India and Pakistan and we try to convince them to reduce their arsenal. How much credibility do you think we would have when they have less than a 100 nuclear weapons each, and we have nearly 10,000. Would you try to conserve water in a drought when the country club next door was watering day and night? Thats the whole point of reducing our arsenal. We don't need near the number of nuclear weapons we did during the height of the Cold War, so in order to be credible when we try to convince other nations to reduce their arsenals, we have to be more reasonable about ours.

As to nuclear weapons being unaccounted for, mistakes happen, in fact one happened just last August:

Report: Air Force lost track of five nuclear missiles

Q1x00112_9 Mistakes by U.S. Air Force personnel left five nuclear warheads unaccounted for during a three-hour period on Aug. 30, according to Army Times.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/...t-air-forc.html

[forrestkc]

Yes, we certainly need that full cold war era arsenal to combat islamic nutjobs in caves.

Actually, yes, we do need them. We are living in one of the most dangerous times in our history.

So your answer to terrorism is a Nuclear Holocaust.

[faith pleases God]

You tube is censored here. But do your research or I would have already done it for you. Obama+pledge. By the way Obama or Hillary is going to be the end of our sovereignty.

I'd checked Youtube, and I just checked again. I suggest you do the same. If you find the alleged video--which I did not--please PM it to me.

Here is the Video (not on YouTube)

Watch the video and note these two things:

(1) The video is of the NATIONAL ANTHEM, not the Pledge.

(2) Obama is SINGING the National Anthem. (How's that for unpatriotic?)

I rest my case. This is what I've been saying all along. Thank you, Brandon.

You have no case. He went out of his way to avoid placing his hand over his heart. Simply singing the national anthem is not showing any allegance to it.

This example is bad for Obama (sorry, Lorax).

[kat8585]

Yes, we certainly need that full cold war era arsenal to combat islamic nutjobs in caves.

Actually, yes, we do need them. We are living in one of the most dangerous times in our history.

So your answer to terrorism is a Nuclear Holocaust.

No, just to be able to protect ourselves. That's not too much, is it?

[faith pleases God]

If I can turn some away from Barak Hussein Obama because of his middle name, so be it.

This offends my moral sensibilities, and I guess this is where we differ.

For instance, I don't like McCain because I think there are many valid reasons he shouldn't be President. So when I am trying to convince a person not to vote for McCain, I use those reasons. I don't appeal to bigotry. I don't need to, and even if I did, I wouldn't. Bigotry is wrong and you're giving it a Machiavellian, not a Christian, justification.

If I can prevent an evil man like Barak Hussein Obama from becoming President by simply swaying voters using his middle name, I feel just fine in doing so. He supports infanticide, and I don't want a person like that as President. In addition, I believe he would destroy America. I would imagine that if someone could go back in time to Germany before Hitler took over, and convince the people to prevent him from taking power by simply using something scary in his name, they would gladly have done so. This situation is no differen't, because having Barak Hussein Obama elected will lead to the death of untold numbers of innocent babies. Your morals allow you to vote for a man supporting infanticide, but not to use his middle name to scare off voters?

I am in full agreement.

[nikos]

We can't take chances with the Presidency! We must be sure that Obama is okay.

Read this and it will make you think:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20080303b.html

[faith pleases God]

At least Obama only wants to indebt the americans with $1 trillion + interest to the U.N. for poverty. We pay with no say. I do not want this man in control of our national anything.

[The Lorax]

It is irrelivant Lorax.

I think the fact that we can't keep track of all our nukes is very relevant when we're debating the safety of maintaining a huge nuclear stockpile.

Nobody is suggesting we get rid of all of our nukes, so there will always be the chance of an incident like that occuring.

I'm not suggesting we get rid of all of our nukes, but I'd certainly argue against people who want to expand the stockpile. There is also something to be said for multilateral disarmament, like we were doing with Russia. We have a lot of nukes--way more than we need to defend ourselves. The less we have, the less likely it is there will be incidents like the one above.

I just said that there is no reason for it to happen. In other words, it was completely preventable.

You're not talking about reality, then; you're talking about ShouldWorld, a parallel universe where everything happens like it should. I'm sorry, but in this world the incident DID happen. The fact it WASN'T prevented should not just be ignored.

I'm waiting for your answer to his question..

Is your impatience something only I can cure?

[nikos]

Barack Obama is urging the homosexual community to support his campaign and promising them advocacy, should he become president. In a Feb. 28 letter posted on his Web site, Obama pledged to push laws that would benefit the constituency.