Sarah Palin: Obamas Like a Kid Who Says 'Punch Me in the Face' (Nuclear Disarmament)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by US Army Retired, Apr 8, 2010.

  1. US Army Retired
    Offline

    US Army Retired BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    571
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +108
    Sarah Palin is hammering President Obama for putting unprecedented limits on the use of U.S. nuclear weapons, comparing him to a kid in a playground who is asking for a punch in the face.
    Palin knows exactly what is going on with this situation. As governor of a state with Nuclear Missile sites, she was briefed daily from her commanders which was of strategic importance because of Russias closeness to Alaska. You cannot deny that fact. In everyday biefings for almost 700 days in office you gain knowledge from your Military commanders. Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

    As governor of Alaska, Palin was briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism.

    She was the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans. Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense given Alaska's proximity to Russia.

    Palin: Obama Asking for 'Punch in the Face' | Before It's News


    "It's unbelievable. Unbelievable," said Palin on Wednesday evening while appearing on Sean Hannity's Fox News program. "No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'

    "No, it's unacceptable," she continued. "This is another thing that the American public, the more that they find out, what is a part of this agenda, they are going to rise up and they are going to say 'no more.' National security, national defense is the No. 1 job of the federal government."

    Palin, who is a Fox News contributor, made her remarks while appearing with Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., on a special edition of Hannity's program. The conservative Fox News anchor brought his show to Minneapolis and conducted it in front of an enormous audience of people who had just attended a Palin-Bachmann rally.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. US Army Retired
    Offline

    US Army Retired BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    571
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +108
    Why can't Obama ooze Patriotism about America as Palin does wanting to protect it with as much military might as possible?
     
  3. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Sarah Palin is an idiot, and should stop trying to take potshots on Facebook.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  4. US Army Retired
    Offline

    US Army Retired BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    571
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +108
    The is covering her saying this last night and giving her coverage. She is not a idiot.
     
  5. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Coming from a an idiot, that carries a lot of weight. :lol:
     
  6. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    Yeah, but sadly, when she says things like this it is like she is a kid saying I dare you to punch me in the face.

    I love her ideology. I admire her convictions. I despise her approach.

    She opens herself up to the criticism.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    We are also not involved in the cold war anymore, and have been cutting back our nuclear weapons for years. Obama isn't doing anything new, and I highly doubt we are really limiting the number of missles. It is called politics. And Sarah needs to stay in the kiddie pool.
     
  8. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    Let us take a look at the supporters and backers of this initiative and treaty signed by Obama:
    Ronald Reagan started it and this is an extension of the very act he signed. Later,I will quote Reagan word for word on nuclear arms elimination.
    John McCain
    Henry Kissinger
    JCOS Mullen
    Sen Richard Lugar
    Russia wanted restrictions in this treaty and got none. NO restrictions on any future US technology and implementation of any missle defense system is in the treaty.
    Russia wanted to eliminate all inspection procedures. They are not in there in this treaty. Gates spoke about that today and he favors and supports this treaty.
    Of course, Retired, you being a military man you do understand this treaty is also an extension of the 2003 Nuclear Reduction Treaty with Russia, don't you? Now who was President then and what difference is there now?
    In 2003 let us take a good look at the bi-partisan support for that Bush Nuclear Reduction Treaty:
    Mcain,Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss,
    Thad Cochran, Pat Roberts and others.
    Missing on that vote was Mitch McConnell as HE DIDN'T EVEN VOTE that day. And I know you are asking why Retired. Could it be that Mitch McConnell does not have the guts to vote his conscience with a Republican making the tough decisions?
    Sure is as guess who is leading the charge NOW against this current treaty?
    But Retired, stay tuned for the reality of the day. The treaty is a good one, not a perfect one and Lugar knows it. His status and backing will be enough to get it past and out of The
    Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the very few of us that remember the words of Ronald Reagan on these issues with nuclear weapons respect that and what Reagan stated: "My central arms control objective has been to reduce substantially, and ultimately to eliminate nuclear weapons and rid the world of the nuclear threat" Ronald Reagan.
    Now Retired, please inform us where Reagan was wrong and what is in this treaty that differs with Reagans clear statement that his objective was to "eliminate nuclear weapons and rid the world of the nuclear threat".
    As usual, the Republicans have found their ass sideways in the crack once again.
     
  9. US Army Retired
    Offline

    US Army Retired BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    571
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +108
    But the Russians couldn’t care less what the Obama administration believes about missile defense. The Russians have made it exceedingly clear that Kremlin compliance with the treaty will evaporate at any point when Moscow decides our missile defense program threatens them. And the Russians have already said repeatedly that they believe it does. There is a good reason that neither Russian President Dmitri Medvedev nor Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have uttered a word about the treaty in public. As New York University professor of Russian Studies and History Stephen Cohen told MSNBC just seconds after Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the agreement: “Politically it is an unstable treaty.” Why should the U.S. Senate ratify a treaty that Russia maintains it can exit at any time?

    President Obama’s New START has other problems as well. The Russians have a long and well documented history of violating arms control agreements. By focusing intently on numerical arms reduction, it is unclear what ground Obama gave up on verification. There is also legitimate concern that the President has not yet met requirements under U.S. law (sec 1251 of the 2009 Defense Authorization Act) to adequately address the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons and infrastructure before entering into a new arms control agreement. But President Obama’s NPR promises not to develop any new nuclear weapons.That’s an odd promise since Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are all doing so. The first thing to note about the Obama treaty is that it confers real advantages on the Russians. For starters, the Kremlin will have to make essentially no cuts in the numbers of its deployed strategic launchers, whereas the United States will have to destroy several hundred of ours.

    What is clear, though, is that we will be obliged to cut back our arsenal to match the lower levels that the Russians can afford to maintain at the moment. The advisability of such a step would be debatable even if it produced a genuine equality between the two parties.

    Unfortunately, the seeming equality thus established is deceptive in at least three respects:

    First, the Russians are aggressively modernizing their strategic forces with both new missiles and warheads. They claim that by 2015 roughly 80% of their long-range arsenal will have been upgraded – an activity we are subsidizing by paying to dismantle their old weapon systems, freeing up funds for Moscow’s modernization programs.

    Second, the Russians are reintroducing multiple, independently-targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on their land-based ballistic missiles. This step could enable a break-out capacity that would allow Moscow rapidly to deploy far more weapons than its forces are allowed to have under the new START treaty. By contrast, the United States decided back in the 1980s that such a capability was “destabilizing”; it has systematically de-MIRVed its underground silo-launched intercontinental-range ballistic missiles ever since.

    Third, the newly unveiled START accord fails to take into account or otherwise limit several thousand Russian “tactical” nuclear weapons. The Kremlin has focused for twenty years on such low-yield devices; some with the explosive power of the Hiroshima weapon and fitted on submarine-launched cruise missiles are deployed off our coasts today.
     
  10. Mr Clean
    Offline

    Mr Clean Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    10,055
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,827
    Protect it from who?

    We won, we're the big kid on the block that nobody's going to fuck with.

    We spend more on defense than every other country in the world combined. If that does not buy us security, then (a) we the taxpayers are getting royally screwed or (b) somebody doesn't know wht the fuck they're doing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

sarah palin kids on playground nuclear weapon analogy