What Country Does Obama Think He's President Of?

[driveby]

Congratulations to President Obama.....


Looks like he is on his way to a second straight Nobel Peace Prize

Doesn't he actually have to 'deserve' the first one before the award him another?

You're a laughing stock with your devotion to a politician.

Once again, President Obama demonstrates why he deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

- Passed the first comprehensive Healthcare legislation in US history providing coverage to 30 million americans
- signed an historic treaty with the Russians reducing nuclear weapons by 30%

and the year is only 1/4 done

1) Forcing a law on people that don't want it is not worthy of a peace prize.

2) He could have reduced our nuclear weapons by 30% without a treaty.

 

[mudwhistle]

Doesn't he actually have to 'deserve' the first one before the award him another?

You're a laughing stock with your devotion to a politician.

Once again, President Obama demonstrates why he deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

- Passed the first comprehensive Healthcare legislation in US history providing coverage to 30 million americans
- signed an historic treaty with the Russians reducing nuclear weapons by 30%

and the year is only 1/4 done

1) Forcing a law on people that don't want it is not worthy of a peace prize.

2) He could have reduced our nuclear weapons by 30% without a treaty.

They didn't really care what was in the bill....they just wanted one passed.

It's full of holes. It doesn't cover anyone. It just makes it illegal not to be covered.

Bush got rid of over half of our nuke arsenal and got squat.

Obama agrees to get rid of 30% which he still hasn't and he gets praise.

Bush got rid of over 3000 warheads and Obama wants to get rid of 700...which is more?

 

[rightwinger]

OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?

Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.

Did they raise taxes? No.

Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.

Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.

So, what was it, exactly?

waiting..........


did they all go to sleep?

As is typical of liberal thought. You presume government action is necessary to solve problems. If the government had rejected derivitives and expansion of the home loan programs, we could have avoided a great deal of this.

The Fed actually kept interest rates at artifically low levels to keep economic growth going. This created a false bubble which was going to have to correct at some time. It did.

As is typical of liberal thought. You presume government action is necessary to solve problems. If the government had rejected derivitives and expansion of the home loan programs, we could have avoided a great deal of this.

Aren't rejecting derivatives and expansion of home loans "government actions"????

 

[antagon]

Doesn't he actually have to 'deserve' the first one before the award him another?

You're a laughing stock with your devotion to a politician.

Once again, President Obama demonstrates why he deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

- Passed the first comprehensive Healthcare legislation in US history providing coverage to 30 million americans
- signed an historic treaty with the Russians reducing nuclear weapons by 30%

and the year is only 1/4 done

1) Forcing a law on people that don't want it is not worthy of a peace prize.

2) He could have reduced our nuclear weapons by 30% without a treaty.

with out a treaty?

why even criticize policies if you're an out-and-out idiot?

driveby, we've been at disarmament, anti-testing, and non-proliferation for the last 50 years to affect a commensurate draw-down of arms. if the US takes our finger off the trigger and lowers our muzzle without first making some kind of agreement with the ruskies to do the same, who's got a gun to their head with no counterthreat then?

think, captain partisan. then you can see what's good for what is good and what is bad for bad.

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again, President Obama demonstrates why he deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

- Passed the first comprehensive Healthcare legislation in US history providing coverage to 30 million americans
- signed an historic treaty with the Russians reducing nuclear weapons by 30%

and the year is only 1/4 done

1) Forcing a law on people that don't want it is not worthy of a peace prize.

2) He could have reduced our nuclear weapons by 30% without a treaty.

with out a treaty?

why even criticize policies if you're an out-and-out idiot?

driveby, we've been at disarmament, anti-testing, and non-proliferation for the last 50 years to affect a commensurate draw-down of arms. if the US takes our finger off the trigger and lowers our muzzle without first making some kind of agreement with the ruskies to do the same, who's got a gun to their head with no counterthreat then?

think, captain partisan. then you can see what's good for what is good and what is bad for bad.

Agreements and treaties are worthless when you're dealing with dishonest regimes.

Chamberlain found that out before World War II

 

[antagon]

quid pro quo... russias dealing with the US, just like we're dealing with them.

how many nuke warheads do we have, mud?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

2) He could have reduced our nuclear weapons by 30% without a treaty.

Could he have reduced the Russians' nukes without a treaty?

 

[Vast LWC]

As is typical of liberal thought. You presume government action is necessary to solve problems. If the government had rejected derivitives and expansion of the home loan programs, we could have avoided a great deal of this.

The Fed actually kept interest rates at artifically low levels to keep economic growth going. This created a false bubble which was going to have to correct at some time. It did.

I was responding to a poster who blamed the high unemployment rate on the democratic congress of 2007-2009.

And I was wondering what specific legislation he was trying to blame it on.

I was not in fact implying that government action was necessary to solve problems.

And I agree with your statement about derivatives, but this certainly was not the result of some action by the 2007-2009 congress, which was my point.

The loosening of the restrictions on derivatives and credit-default swaps was in fact the result of legislation by the Republican congress of 1999 and 2000.

The loosening of the restrictions on home loans was the result of prior Democratic congresses well over a decade ago.

 

[Vast LWC]

They didn't really care what was in the bill....they just wanted one passed.

It's full of holes. It doesn't cover anyone. It just makes it illegal not to be covered.

Bush got rid of over half of our nuke arsenal and got squat.

Obama agrees to get rid of 30% which he still hasn't and he gets praise.

Bush got rid of over 3000 warheads and Obama wants to get rid of 700...which is more?

Bush's reduction of the Nuclear arsenal is laudable, and honestly I heard nothing about it.

I think that perhaps the lack of press on the subject was intentional on the part of the Bush white house, given the republican fascination with all things military.

So why would the right-wing folks on the board then be criticizing Obama for signing an official treaty that does the same thing?

And by including the reduction in a treaty, he insures that the Russians also reduce their stockpile at the same time...

 

[Vast LWC]

Agreements and treaties are worthless when you're dealing with dishonest regimes.

Chamberlain found that out before World War II

Which leads us back to the fact that this is basically following Reagan's plan for Nuclear disarmament.

So what's the difference now? Is it somehow a "weaker" action because a Democrat is doing it?

Or are you saying Reagan was a fool who was being taken in by the Russians?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Don't you get it, LWC? We need another Reagan, and Reagan would never have done such a thing....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Agreements and treaties are worthless when you're dealing with dishonest regimes.

Chamberlain found that out before World War II

Which leads us back to the fact that this is basically following Reagan's plan for Nuclear disarmament.

So what's the difference now? Is it somehow a "weaker" action because a Democrat is doing it?

Or are you saying Reagan was a fool who was being taken in by the Russians?

Soon all the stock footage of Reagan will be exposed as fakes pieced together by left-winger communist blogger liberals at MSNBC.

 

[Stephanie]

Agreements and treaties are worthless when you're dealing with dishonest regimes.

Chamberlain found that out before World War II

Which leads us back to the fact that this is basically following Reagan's plan for Nuclear disarmament.

So what's the difference now? Is it somehow a "weaker" action because a Democrat is doing it?

Or are you saying Reagan was a fool who was being taken in by the Russians?

omg, there really is no hope here.

 

[Vast LWC]

Soon all the stock footage of Reagan will be exposed as fakes pieced together by left-winger communist blogger liberals at MSNBC.

ROFL, I wish I could rep you again for that, but it's been too soon. Very nice.

 

[Vast LWC]

Which leads us back to the fact that this is basically following Reagan's plan for Nuclear disarmament.

So what's the difference now? Is it somehow a "weaker" action because a Democrat is doing it?

Or are you saying Reagan was a fool who was being taken in by the Russians?

omg, there really is no hope here.

Well, do you have an answer to the question? Was Reagan wrong?

 

[Modbert]

Have the OP or any of the clowns who have thanked the OP actually read the treaty?

This is what happened when you get your news from Fox News folks, you become ignorant of the facts.

I'm linking to the Huff so it can be watched:

Stewart Rips Fox News For Inaccurate Reporting On Nuclear Arms Treaty (VIDEO)

 

[CMike]

OK, this post is getting way too long I hope no-one minds if I shorten it, you can always go back to the prior posts for the data.

Not really.

The month before Obama took office unemployment was at 7.4%, it got to 10.1%.

That means unemployment rate went up about 40% under Obama

OK, how exactly do you hold Obama responsible for the number of unemployed from the month before he started working? Hmmm? The man was inaugurated at the end of January.

Good evening.

I don't. I am comparing how much the unemployment rate was right before Obama to what Obama got it to.

Seems like some lame spin to me. February was his first full month in office.

Which means that his starting figure was 8.2%, not 7.7% which would have been January, or 7.4%, which was the number you quoted meaning you're trying to hold him responsible for the TWO months before he took office.

He took office January 20th.

Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, his talking points don't work in real debate.

So, going from 8.2%, to the 10.0% from your own figures (and not the 10.1% you just made up), that's a 21% increase.

Bush's contribution was from 4.4% to 8.2%, or a 46% increase.

Now it did go down to 9.7% so the uemployment to the present went up about 35%.

Or, in real math 15%

Okay, you are splitting hairs. His first day was January 20th. January has 31 days, so half would be January 16th. I'll split the difference.
7.7+8.2=/2 is 7.95

7.95 from January 16 until Sept 2009 is 28%
7.95 from January 16 until March 2010 is 24%

How the fuck are you going to blame Obama for the 2 years before he became president?

I don't. I blame the democrats. For the six years before the democrats took over congress the unemployment rate was very low. The democrats took over congress and it all goes downhill. It was the beginning of the end.

All legislation starts with congress.

You know how I know you're getting these numbers from Rush Limbaugh, because I've heard him use them on his show.

How I got these numbers are very easy, I took the unemployment rate numbers in the chart and I calculated the percent using my trusty caluclator on my desk. The numbers are the numbers, they don't change.

So, let me ask you, what was it, specifically, that the Democrats did that has such a dramatic effect on the Unemployment numbers?

Please feel free to elaborate, in detail, exactly what legislations they passed during that time that made the Unemployment numbers go up.

I did a few times. The worst thing Obama tried to do is micromanage the banks. It's one thing to give loans, it's another to try and manage them. That is not the role of government.

Doing this he scared the shit out of the banks to lend money. Small businesses need money to survive, and even grow. He created a credit crunch.

Remember this article?

Bailout watchdog: Credit crunch alive and well - May. 7, 2009

There was no weapon to be implemented. It was a giant black hole for taxpayer funds and IT NEVER WORKED.

Says who? The Soviets were terrrified it. It wasn't a weapon. It was a shield. Do you realize that without a defense shield that even if a nuke is fired at america by accident there is no way to destroy it.


The Missile Defense Agency - U.S. Department of Defense

The Ballistic Missile Defense System

Not even close. To be required to get auto insurance you have to own a car and have a drivers license. To be required to get Obama's health insurance you have to just exist. There is a vast difference.

Everyone needs to drive to work, unless you live in a heavy urban area.

I guess you could just not work, and then you wouldn't need to drive...

But of course, if you didn't work, you wouldn't be charged for health insurance anyway, would you?

Not necessarily. You can take pubic transportation. You can be car pooled. You don't necessarily have to drive.

For the ObamaCare you will be fined and penalized for not getting his insurance for simply existing.

Your premise is wrong. There are terrorists hiding in Pakistan, that doesn't mean Pakistan is harboring terrorists. In fact, Pakistan helped George Bush locate and kill terrorists.

Pakistan Raid Start Of Concerted Bid To Hit Al-Qaida : NPR

That is absolute crap. Pakistan made no secret about the fact that they were offering the Taliban and members of Al Qaeda a "Safe Haven". Where have you been burying your head in the sand that you didn't hear about that?

Links?

The only started an offensive against them after Obama started moving more troops to Afghanistan.

Says who? Obama? As I showed Hussein and Al Qaida had links that went back a decade.

I already posted this...


This is testimony from the CIA director to the Senate Intelligence committee

Behind Closed Doors

Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?


Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.
More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee

Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.
...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.

We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.

Case Closed | The Weekly Standard

The above link quotes a Department of Defense memo that has over 50 contacts between Al Qaida and Iraqi intelligence.

 

[mudwhistle]

Have the OP or any of the clowns who have thanked the OP actually read the treaty?

This is what happened when you get your news from Fox News folks, you become ignorant of the facts.

I'm linking to the Huff so it can be watched:

Stewart Rips Fox News For Inaccurate Reporting On Nuclear Arms Treaty (VIDEO)

Have you read it?

 

[CMike]

More about Pakistan being an ally

Bush hails Pakistan as strong ally - White House- msnbc.com

Bush hails Pakistan as strong ally in terror fightPakistani Prime Minister
July 28: In a joint statement with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, President Bush says Pakistan is a strong ally in the fight against terrorists.
updated 12:34 p.m. ET, Mon., July 28, 2008
WASHINGTON - President Bush praised Pakistan Monday as a strong ally in the fight against terrorists and as committed to securing its border with Afghanistan.

The president appeared on the South Lawn with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. The visit came at a tense moment in ties between the countries, with calls from U.S. officials for Pakistan to stop militants from staging cross-border attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


Also...

Officials: Bush approved military raids in Pakistan - USATODAY.com

Officials: Bush approved military raids in Pakistan

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush has secretly approved U.S. military raids inside anti-terror ally Pakistan, according to current and former U.S. officials. The high-risk gambit prizes the death or capture of al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists over the sensitivities of a shaky U.S.-backed civilian government that does not want to seem like Washington's lapdog.
Bush acted in July to give U.S. forces greater leeway to cross from outposts in Afghanistan into the rugged area along the Pakistan border. Pakistan's central government has little control in this area, where extremists have found what U.S. officials say is a comfortable safe haven.

 

[CMike]

LWC what Bush legislation did he do that you think caused the recession?