I swear.
Do you understand English?

There is nothing to reconcile.
No need.


You guys complain WAYYY too much.
You've lost sight of complaints WITH SUBSTANCE.

Are nukes off the table?
Yes or no?


I swear.
You guys byatch coming and going.

A minute ago you were complaining that you thought we couldn't use nukes in those situations.
NOW you're complaining that we can...


Anti-Obama fever...



It's funny how you get so many things so COMPLETELY wrong.
It is obviously a policy he is intending to stick to, but he leaves reservations for extenuating circumstances.

What the heck is wrong with people that they can't recognize that?


In your eyes?
Meh...


I already recognize that I am diminished in your eyes because I'm not foaming at the mouth against Obama.
And the fact that a comedian has more facts than you ...
And you think that denigrates ME because I am listening to somebody who has more facts than you...

If Jon Stewart is such a negative factor and he knows more than you, what does that make you?


Some people like to laugh.
Crazy liberals.

Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to have their entertainment scare them and make them mad...


I'll stick to mine, thank you very much!


"object to"?
There are actions he has done that is not in line with the majority.

But unlike some people, I don't see that as a reason to foam at the mouth and proclaim others that don't share your hatred of Obama as some mental or moral defect...


Was that so tough?

Now you realize that if I were practicing your tactics I would turn around and attack you cause you chose the "conservative" issues for agreeing with him...


First of all, nice attempt at back-peddling.
You didn't say "majority of his policies".

You said: "If all of someone's actions are harmful to the nation how is it a stretch to conclude the intent was to cause harm?"

And quite frankly, the "right to believe so" is the tactic of people who cannot defend their position, so instead they fall back to the ground where they can avoid having to defend their position...


See?
This is where you can't be reasoned with.
You AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME my position instead of bothering to ask me or figure out what it is.

I have serious reservations about "mandatory health insurance" as well.
But don't let reality stop you from bashing me for a position I don't have...


It's not your POLITICAL position that is the problem, but rather your rabid attitude on the issue.
You refuse to listen.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

foundit, STFU.

You bitch about personal attacks but do nothing other than personally attack.

You do what you harp and moan about and have the arrogance to simply ignore that fact.

I asked earlier but you're not willing to change the civility of the discourse. So be it. The bully pulpit is yours, have at it.

This is the part where you say something stupid about how you 'won' based on blah, blah, blah reason. Don't let that opportunity escape you.

__________________
Dudes ... you're just NOT THAT MUCH ****ING SMARTER than all of us. GET OVER YOURSELVES!
-- Me, to President Obama and the rest of his self-loving amateur staff.

Sorry ... but if you can't see how this is getting juvenile than I simply am at a loss for words.

You win.

__________________
Dudes ... you're just NOT THAT MUCH ****ING SMARTER than all of us. GET OVER YOURSELVES!
-- Me, to President Obama and the rest of his self-loving amateur staff.

Here's an interesting article relevant to this thread:

He doesn't win anything on substance. Just ignore Him if you must. Don't empower or encourage Him.

Obama plainly stated that He put NPR over National Defense. That does translate to a violation of Oath to me. What else is new???

Foundit66 supports that. What does it say about him. He needs the red herring to divert from the real focus. The whole argument is tangent. SOP. The only thing it is evidence of is wasted tuition and college loans. How to make down appear as up in 10,000 words or less.

Quite frankly, you are describing your own post to a T.

I am happy to discuss the topic.

In fact, this will be the SECOND time I will have to post to REMIND YOU of what topical aspects I have posted while you complain about other content...



Dude.
I am replying to WHAT YOU GIVE ME.

If you can't be honest enough to admit that to me, then at least be honest enough to admit that to yourself.


And now let's cut back to the TOPICAL CONTENT which you're ignoring.
Feel free to continue to ignore what you can't handle...

1) HOW is it that you guys think that complaining that he is restricting nuclear use, and the NEXT minute (after you have been educated that he is leaving an option open) you are complaining that he isn't restricting nuclear use?

2) Claiming "he has no intention on sticking to it" is an absurd comment.
Take marriage as an analogy.
Marriage has an option for divorce, right?
Does that mean that people who got married "have no intention of sticking to" their marriage vows?
Does that mean that people who got married and then divorce "had no intention of sticking to" their marriage vows?

This criticism is just asinine!

3) You stated: "If all of someone's actions are harmful to the nation how is it a stretch to conclude the intent was to cause harm?"
If you're going to backpeddle and just say "some", then at least have the integrity to admit how YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM of "all" of Obama's actions being harmful is just plain rabid anti-Obama-ism.

4) Don't assume my position on things.
You obviously assume that since I don't attack Obama with as much fervor as you do, that means I "worship" him.
The hyperbole of claiming that others who disagree with you ON A POLITICAL ISSUE are somehow "worshipping" Obama is ridiculously insulting.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Can you please quote exactly what he said?


Can you please quote where I said I supported "Obama putting NPR over National Defense"?


See, THIS is where these discussions go ridiculous.
Well. Even MORE ridiculous.

INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING THE TOPIC, you guys are focusing ON THE PERSON.
Instead of discussing the policy, the tactic you are using is "what does this say about foundit66?"


And you guys pretend I am the one "insulting" as you guys continue with these antics?

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism

Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism
As a critical element of our effort to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, the United
States will lead expanded international efforts to rebuild and strengthen the global nuclear nonproliferation
regime – and for the first time, the 2010 NPR places this priority atop the U.S.
nuclear agenda.

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010...w%20Report.pdf

Spin away.

What's up with China???? Didn't they get the memo????
They are making the NPR look bad, man! I'm utterly shocked!!!



China sells petrol to Iran while talking at UN about sanctionsChina argues the issue of Iran's uranium enrichment is not as urgent as Washington claims, and that there is still time for diplomacy
(2)Tweet this (33)Julian Borger, diplomatic editor guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 April 2010 20.29 BST Article history
China has deepened economic ties with Iran, boosting direct sales of petrol to the Islamic republic as the Chinese government negotiates new sanctions at the UN security council, it has emerged.

Iran announced today at the UN discussions in New York that it has produced five kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, defying security council demands to stop enrichment. Iran says it needs the enriched uranium to make medically useful isotopes, but western governments fear the achievement will enable Tehran to develop the capacity to make weapons-grade fuel.

General James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said yesterday that Iran could build a bomb in a year, although it would probably take three to five years.

China has argued that the issue is not as urgent as Washington claims, and that there is still time for diplomacy.

A Chinese state oil company has sent two recent shipments of petrol to Iran, according to Reuters news agency. The sale by Chinaoil was the first by a Chinese company since January 2009 of refined oil products to Iran directly, rather than through intermediaries. Another Chinese company, Sinopec, is about to sell petrol to Iran for the first time in six years, filling a gap left by European and Russian firms that left the Iranian market amid fears of punitive action by Washington.

Iran-China trade has more than doubled to about $30 billion (£19.38m) over the past decade, fuelling Chinese reluctance to agree to sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Beijing has agreed to discuss a possible sanctions resolution, but has insisted — with Moscow — that any measures are confined to Iran's nuclear sector, and do not cause wider economic damage.

The five permanent members of the security council — the US, China, Russia, Britain and France — discussed draft sanctions yesterday with Germany, which has also played a leading role in negotiations with Tehran.

Another senior US official, William Burns, said that it would be "very difficult" to convince China and Russia to agree to a ban on refined fuel sales.

The US draft sanctions resolution includes a full arms embargo, more restrictions on Iranian banks, curbs on international shipping insurance for Iranian freight, asset freezing and travel restrictions on members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and a ban on new investments in Iran's oil and gas industry. China is currently opposing the ban on energy investments.

"The Chinese are obviously concerned about what ramifications this might have on the economy," President Obama said yesterday after talks with the Chinese president, Hu Jintao. He is hopeful that an agreement can be reached "within weeks".



China sells petrol to Iran while talking at UN about sanctions | World news | The Guardian

Nothing to "spin".

You said "He put NPR over National Defense"

And then, you quote that it is "atop the U.S. nuclear agenda".

National Defense and "nuclear agenda" are two separate things.


You are the one spinning.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein