moonbattery logo

Feb 15 2012

Obama Pushes Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament

Flushing $zillions of our money down hostile Islamist regimes as nuclear weapons show every sign of spreading throughout the Middle East could really throw the budget out of kilter. Fortunately the Manchurian Moonbat has found a place he doesn’t mind making cuts — our nuclear arsenal:

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

That is, the elimination of our nuclear weapons. Our enemies will still have them.

We knew all along Obama hated this country. He is now methodically destroying it, as everyone who was paying attention knew in advance he would do.

mushroom-cloud
Our fate when we can no longer deter our enemies.

On a tip from Shawn.



68 Responses to “Obama Pushes Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament”

  1. AC says:

    Impeach him for treason now.

    America’s nuclear arsenal is one of the few things stopping the world from being enveloped in totalitarian socialism.

    The continued strength of our strategic deterrent is necessary, for it will allow us to make even larger targeted defense cuts elsewhere. We no longer need to think along the lines of WWII strategy when determining what we need for defense of the homeland.

  2. Spider says:

    Interesting point AC, but the American people, and the elected lying crooks who “represent” them, are far too dumb to see what’s coming.

    For generations, the radical, anti-American Left has been trying everything in it’s power to disarm this country of it’s nuclear power, even though it’s that very power which has kept us alive. Now, while the people are busy watching “reality” TV shows, the Marxist-in-Chief will once again ignore congress and lay us bare at the feet of our enemies. And guess what AC. No one, not We The People, nor the totally impotent Republicans, will lift a finger to stop him.

    Perhaps history will show that we, as a society, lacked the strength and the will to even save our own country.

  3. lao says:

    From blount’s own link:

    The nation’s top military leader says discussions about sharp new cuts in the U.S. nuclear force are preliminary and maintaining the status quo is still an option.

    blount’s translation? That is, the elimination of our nuclear weapons. Our enemies will still have them.

    Welcome to wingnutopia.

    Some more reality:

    Graph:Nuclear Warheads 1945-2002

    The Nuclear Weapons Modernization Budget

    The dismantling of retired warheads does not appear to be a priority for the Obama administration. There are several thousand retired warheads – probably around 3,500 – in storage awaiting dismantlement. Most were retired during the reduction of the stockpile by nearly half in 2004-2007, but the annual dismantlement budget will be less than in 2010 and comparable to that of the Bush administration. The $56.8 million scheduled for FY2012 is a 40% reduction compared with FY2010. At the planned rate, all warheads retired prior to FY2010 will be dismantled by 2022.

  4. czuch says:

    Lose those then the 2nd amendment and were done. I say first year of the second term when he also proclaims President for life and goes on a world wide tour.
    2012/2013

  5. StanInTexas says:

    …although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    Forgot this part of the article, didn’t you Loa.

  6. lao says:

    With massive investments in widespread modernization of nuclear forces and industry, the FY2012 budget shows that the Obama administration is following through on its promise to make significant investments in modernizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

    The “generational” modernizations proposed in the budget represent a commitment to extending the nuclear era as long into the future as it has lasted so far. A challenge will be whether nuclear modernization will overshadow nuclear disarmament in the administration’s public nuclear image.

  7. AC says:

    Obama promised aggressive cuts to the stockpile when he was on the campaign trail. Try again.

  8. AC says:

    I should also remind you that the Obama administration killed funding for the reliable replacement warhead program. If he were serious about modernizing our strategic deterrent then he would not have cut the funding.

    Maintaining a strong, reliable, and safe stockpile should be a bipartisan objective. America’s nuclear arsenal keeps freedom alive and makes massive spending on outdated modes of warfare unnecessary.

    Need I remind you that Canada lives in security under the umbrella of American military strength? Canada is a very close ally and good friend of the US. Canada benefits from the American deterrent. The American arsenal makes a cowardly WMD attack against our closest ally unthinkable to any state actor.

  9. jtm371 says:

    loa i think i hear david brock calling for you he needs his daily enema.please come back when your done.the halfbreed must be stopped vote him out.

  10. lao says:

    The budget includes significant investments in maintaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons in the stockpile through the life-extension programs (LEPs). Including the costs from FY2011, the administration plans to spend $6.3 billion through FY2016 on the warheads in the stockpile. Additional LEPs are planned after 2016.

  11. lao says:

    Budget Blunder “No Cuts” In Nuclear Forces

    “There are no cuts made in the nuclear force in this budget.” That clear statement was made yesterday by deputy defense secretary Ashton Carter during the Pentagon’s briefing on the defense budget request for Fiscal Year 2013.

  12. StanInTexas says:

    So Loa, was Obama lying in 2009, or is he lying now?

  13. ent says:

    I know! Let’s cut to the chase and simply sell our unwanted nuclear weapons to Iran. They could probably use a few hundred mill to spruce up their ICBM development program, as well. It’s our civic duty to embrace Obama’s plan for a bold new future, ya know.

  14. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    Lao
    Unless Canada steps up to the plate, you have no “beef” here.
    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/will-canada-have-rely-us-supply-its-military-arctic

  15. lao says:

    LOL ghost! Is blount lying when he pontificates that “our enemies will still have them” (nukes) and we won’t?

    Nothing like a little nuclear fear mongering in the morning to get people excited.

    Nothing like a few facts to get people scrambling to distract.

  16. StanInTexas says:

    Lao, how does us disarming and getting rid of our nukes automatically mean that other countries with nuclear capabilites will do the same?

  17. lao says:

    stanwee, America is NOT going to disarm and get rid of nukes.

  18. StanInTexas says:

    Obama said we were, and he is in charge right now. Was Obama lying?

  19. lao says:

    Consult the links I provided stanwee.

  20. StanInTexas says:

    Counsult the words Obama said, Lao.

    Oh, you can’t do that becasue they destory your argument. Not that you leaving out the parts of an article that don’t support you is anything new for you!

  21. jtm371 says:

    loa in the words of V Lenin you are a useful idiot.

  22. lao says:

    I consulted the words blount said stanwee.

  23. John Lewis says:

    Let’s hope he doesn’t give them to Iran.

    Re Ghost of FA Hayek’s comment: the Canadian military have still not recovered from three decades of Liberal (left liberal) government. Although the spirit is willing, manpower and hardware are very scarce.

  24. StanInTexas says:

    Lao, what policy or treaty is Blount able to implement, sign, or force through?

    I think the words of the President, saying that he will “…pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.” carries a bit more weight.

    Don’t bother answering, as I know you are too much of a liar and coward to admit that Obama is the real issue here.

  25. StanInTexas says:

    JTM, what makes you think there is anything ‘useful’ about Lao.

  26. AlphaMail says:

    Living next to the Canadian border as I do, I reassure MB readers that most Canucks are not as thankless and delusional as the one who posts here.

    Canada sends troops to aid in US overseas missions and stands beside us in the never-ending battle to preserve liberty around the world. They’re an intensely patriotic and tough breed and they are certainly to be admired.

    Some of them however, are thsnkless wheedlers who condescendingly snivel and spout indefensible Occupy-drivel. The one who posts on this site has an abnormally fixated preoccupation with winning at all costs – fairness, sensitivities, reason, morals, and common sense be damned.

    Anything of any value or merit will be thrown under the bus for a win.

  27. jtm371 says:

    their is nothing useful about loa other then he lives up to the words of V Lenin idiots who will blindly follow the regime and defend anything they do kill 20 mil people or cut the nations nukes by 80%.loa those two examples are from Lenin and the halfbreed did not want you to think i was accusing the halfbreed of killing 20 mil people yet.

  28. lao says:

    No stanwee, blount’s mendacity and your willingness to abet it is the issue.

    blount’s headline and editorial comments are lies.

    Meanwhile, I notice that you failed to link to Obama’s words. Obama had far more to say about nukes than what you have quoted.

    Here they are: Obama Prague Speech On Nuclear Weapons: FULL TEXT

    Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power — as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

    So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence.</b? But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

    Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies — including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

  29. StanInTexas says:

    Keep dancing, Lao. Still does not change the fact that Obama lied and you are doing everything to can to distract from that.

  30. RICH says:

    How will spending billions of dollars that we don’t have in reducing our nuclear arsenal help our economy?

  31. Bloodless Coup says:

    Don’t you get it yet?

    Obama is the Manichurian President, he is a Stealth Jihadist who is actively trying to destroy our country from within.

    Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

  32. oldguy says:

    I will have to rewatch the movie “Seven Days in May”. Apparently I was rooting for the wrong people.

  33. J says:

    LOWEST LEVEL OF STRATEGIC REVIEW WOULD LEAVE PENTAGON WITH FEWER WARHEADS THAN CHINA

    http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/

  34. Lao Brained Cockroach says:

    By all means let us trust in every word an international socialist speaks when it comes to budgeting and disarmament.

    We all know socialists and politicians never lie to advance an agenda.

    We can trust them.

    Why don’t you hand over your guns, property, healthcare, national defense, identity, future and kill your children for them. They are God.

  35. J says:

    Remember lao, as a progressive you’ve freely identified yourself as an openly unintelligent child, which together we have confirmed repeatedly through our many sessions on this blog.

    So the simple fact of the matter is, you’re just unqualified to comment on reality, since your continued subscription to progressive mythology indicates that you have yet to grasp what reality actually is.

    Now, let’s run through some of your latest adolescent hyperventilation in this thread, shall we?

    Try to remember lao, it is the stinky progressive left who’s political platform was born in a mind-altered drug induced haze during an orgy at a rock concert in the late 60s. This is why the right has for decades insulted the left’s ability to perceive reality correctly. This is why the left always gets itself into trouble whenever it attempts to plagiarize the right’s criticism, and parrot them back; they just don’t make any sense.

    But let’s move on past this.

    The nation’s top military leader says discussions about sharp new cuts in the U.S. nuclear force are preliminary and maintaining the status quo is still an option.

    blount’s translation? That is, the elimination of our nuclear weapons. Our enemies will still have them.

    Now, let’s for the moment put aside the fact that you seemingly still have trouble distinguishing the difference between cited fact, and editorial opinion.

    Agree or disagree, Mr. Blount is paraphrasing what the end result would be should they decide to go former option as opposed to the latter. It is not a direct translation of the entire original line; that’s a manufactured fantasy all of your own. But in order to understand this, you have to read between the lines a bit more.

    Now, moving on to the quote from your FAS link, fringe left think tanks love to label themselves as independent and nonpartisan, as though people actually buy their hooey. They like to think that they’re camouflaged when in fact they’re the proverbial bull in a china shop, as transparent as the air we breathe.

    For instance, did you know that Dr. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace served on the Board for Sponsors of the FAS? I’m guessing not, considering that you’re merely parroting the consensus approved response that your Collective has assigned to you. You can listen to Jessica’s progressive prattling here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbx8oM0-FOA

    Let’s take a look at some of the other members that FAS has had:

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1839

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1540

    And of course, who can forget the lovable genocidal kook, John Holdren:

    http://www.fas.org/about/bio/holdren.html

    FAS is also the recipient of a Carnegie Corporation grant:

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5266

    Does this seem like a reliable independent nonpartisan source? Hardly. At least not in the adult world.

    But let’s put that aside for the moment.

    I know thoughts are foreign to you so take this merely as a convenient expression, but had the thought ever occurred to you to ask a critical question?

    Namely, if dismantling warheads does not to be a priority for the Obama administration, then why is AP reporting that the Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. Nuclear force including a reduction of up to 90 percent in the number of deployed weapons?

    Either AP or the FAS are lying or woefully misinformed. Which is it? Are you suggesting that AP is now part of the vast right wing conspiracy?

    Or do you just believe whatever independent nonpartisan think tanks publish? It appears to be the latter.

    Also remember lao, citing the entirely worthless Wikipedia is the direct equivalent of ceding the argument, because Wikipedia is not in any way an acceptable source of information. It is a consensus encyclopedia, which is exactly the very thing that makes it entirely worthless. Citing Wikipedia red flags your arguments as amateurish and naïve, and underscores a high level of misunderstanding.

    That’s all the time I have for now, if I can find time, we’ll review your subsequent posts in this thread together in a later session.

  36. J says:

    I love how naively lao quotes Obama as though it’s gospel.

    loa, can you quote what Obama said about who would responsible of the economy didn’t pick up in three years, three years ago?

  37. J says:

    Oops, 80% not 90.

  38. J says:

    Oops, butterfingers today, the above sentence should read:

    lao, can you quote what Obama said three years ago about who would be responsible for the economy if it didn’t pick up in three years?

  39. lao says:

    As always J I love your smarmy condescension.

    By the way, best to warn AC @9:56 that wikipedia is unacceptable. I expect he will laugh at you just as much as I do.

    J sez: So the simple fact of the matter is, you’re just unqualified to comment on reality,

    Let’s check that shall we?

    Tell me, is this a quote from blount’s own link?

    The nation’s top military leader says discussions about sharp new cuts in the U.S. nuclear force are preliminary and maintaining the status quo is still an option.

    Tell me, does blount’s editorializing claim Obama is going to eliminate America’s nuclear deterrent?

    Tell me, does blount cite Obama’s 2009 speech in Prague?

    Tell me, is this a quote from that speech?

    Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies

    Welcome to reality j.

  40. lao says:

    Too funny j.

    If a link to a transcript of his speech is no good, how about a link to a video of his speech, will that do?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYcAr0ZDSlg

  41. lao says:

    Let’s see what an obviously reliable source (snark!) like conservapedia has to say about YOUR source – Discover the Networks.

    Discover the Networks “A Guide To The Political left” is a comprehensive website detailing a variety of liberals, leftwing causes and groups. The site is a creation of David Horowitz.

  42. StanInTexas says:

    J, try and remember that you are dealing with Lao here.

    Anything Obama says that does not fit Lao’s preconceived notions will be ignored, while another obscure and unrelated statement will be highlighted and used repeatedly to make some insipid point.

    Yes, Obama DID SAY that if the economy didn’t pick up in three years that he would be and should be a one-temr president. On the other hand, Obama also said recently “What a cooooool potato gun”, so let’s discuss THAT quote for a few hours first!

  43. lao says:

    stanwee, you repeatedly mentioned Obama’s 2009 speech without having a clue about what he actually said.

    StanInTexas says: 10:44 am
    Counsult the words Obama said, Lao.

    I did. I cited a transcript and I quoted Obama’s words.

    Didn’t like those quotes did you stanwee? Was that because they demolished your “preconceived notions”?

  44. StanInTexas says:

    Lao, I read the speech. It says EXACTLY what Blount and I claim, that Obama is in favor of the elimination of nuclear weapons. It is sad that his clear words are such a mystery to you, and that you feel the need to lie and equivocate in order to try and protect him.

    And when I say “sad”, I mean exactly what we have come to expect from you.

  45. RICH says:

    Obama wants to spend billions of dollars, borrowed from China, to disarm ourselves.

    Facepalm.

  46. lao says:

    stanwee, I know subtleties are lost on you but “in favor of the elimination of nuclear weapons” is just a LITTLE bit different from “unilateral nuclear disarmament”.

  47. StanInTexas says:

    From the speech that YOU POSTED, Lao…

    But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

    OURS? Not everyone’s? No unilateral disarmament? Just OURS?

    There are Obama’s words, in a speech that YOU provided, stating that the United States will begin to reduce OUR arsenal.

    And what will you use to divert attention from THAT, Lao? Michelle’s cooking? A Supreme Court decision? The price of gasoline? Oh, I know….
    “But, but, but….. BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!”

  48. lao says:

    Too, too funny.

    stanwee @2:10 sez: Anything Obama says that does not fit Lao’s preconceived notions will be ignored, while another obscure and unrelated statement will be highlighted and used repeatedly to make some insipid point.

    Thanks stanwee for the 10 words out of a 27 minute speech that focused on nuclear disarmament. How about I provide a little context. The words you cherry picked are in bold.

    Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power — as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

    So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, “Yes, we can.” (Applause.)

    Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies — including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

    To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.

    To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.

    And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That’s the first step.
    Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.

  49. StanInTexas says:

    So Obama DID say he was going to reduce OUR arsenal.

    Thanks Lao, I appreciate you provide the information that proves you lied.

    You may go now!

  50. lao says:

    Love it.

    stanwee demonstrates his connection to reality.

    None.

  51. StanInTexas says:

    Love it!

    Loa is the same as he always is. A liar and a coward.

  52. lao says:

    With regards Obama’s famous 10 words stanwee asked:

    OURS? Not everyone’s? No unilateral disarmament? Just OURS?

    ‘Fraid not stanwee but of course that’s the lie you want to promote, even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.

    …the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

    …America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence.

    First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies…

    …we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year

    And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.

    To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons.

    Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.

  53. StanInTexas says:

    Good points Lao. that makes things even more clear.

    So in Obama’s vision, FIRST we will reduce our own arsenal. Then we will “seek”, and “pursue”, and “negotiate”, and “seek” some more to get others to stop doing bad things with nuclear weapons.

    In other words. Obama will gut out nuclear capabilities, then he will go around the world and beg other nations to follow our lead. And I’m sure they will be soooooo open and honest and forthcoming with those agreements. Perhaps he can get advice on North Korea from Bill Clinton.

    Lao, PLEASE…PLEASE…PLEASE post some more. As much as i love to destroy your impotent little arguments, you are doing all the work for me here!

  54. lao says:

    I see your mummy comes home in a half hour so there is definitely time for more amusement before you sign off for the day.

    What words directly preceded the famous 10?

    Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies— including the Czech Republic.

  55. StanInTexas says:

    Lao, just a moment ago, you claimed that the 10 words I posted were unimportant to the huge number of words you posted. And now when I showed that your huge number of words actually proved my point, you reverty back to a single sentence in a pathetic attempt to make your point again.

    I have used your words to prove you are a fool, and I have used Obama words THAT YOU PROVIDED to prove the same thing.

    I know you never get tired of being and looking the fool on this board, but I have better things to do that show for the 175,983rd time what a lying piece of shit you are.

    Obama would gleefully destroy the nuclear arsenal of this nation tomorrow without a thought, and you would back him up in it. And when the bombs from other nations started to fall here, you would curse George Bush with your last breath.

    You are scum.

  56. lao says:

    stanwee, you are delusional.

    The title of blount’s screed says “Obama Pushes Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament”.

    That claim is not backed up by blount’s own link.

    That claim is not backed up by what Obama said in Prague in 2009.

    You used Obama’s words alright. Let’s just examine what they were.

    stanwee said: Then we will “seek”, and “pursue”, and “negotiate”, and “seek” some more to get others to stop doing bad things with nuclear weapons.

    Thanks for quoting three more words stanwee. In the context of this thread, only in what passes for your brain do they have any meaning at all.

  57. J says:

    As always J I love your smarmy condescension.

    I hope its what keeps you coming back for our sessions together.

    By the way, best to warn AC @9:56 that wikipedia is unacceptable. I expect he will laugh at you just as much as I do.

    Oh, I know that you’re laughing at me, but remember, you’re the amateur as your citations to the entirely worthless Wikipedia clearly indicate. I understand that this may dishearten you and your fellow activist laymen considering all the endless hours you’ve spent editing entirely worthless Wikipedia articles to your liking as opposed to doing your homework, but thinking people snicker at those who rely on consensus encyclopedias to formulate their world view. It’s just the way reality works.

    Let’s check that shall we?

    Tell me, is this a quote from blount’s own link?

    The nation’s top military leader says discussions about sharp new cuts in the U.S. nuclear force are preliminary and maintaining the status quo is still an option.

    Tell me, does blount’s editorializing claim Obama is going to eliminate America’s nuclear deterrent?

    Tell me, does blount cite Obama’s 2009 speech in Prague?
    Tell me, is this a quote from that speech?

    What point are you struggling to put together here?

    If a link to a transcript of his speech is no good, how about a link to a video of his speech, will that do?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYcAr0ZDSlg

    Actually, if you carefully reread my post, you’ll find that I was mocking your naive proclivity to view Obama’s words as evidence of truth.

    In response to that I actually asked you not to quote the 2009 Prague speech, but rather to quote this comment:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=332_1312666386

    Reality indeed.

    Let’s see what an obviously reliable source (snark!) like conservapedia has to say about YOUR source – Discover the Networks.

    Discover the Networks “A Guide To The Political left” is a comprehensive website detailing a variety of liberals, leftwing causes and groups. The site is a creation of David Horowitz.

    Oh, lao. You keep letting your incorrect assumptions lead you into trouble.

    You insist on debating the Collective’s portrayal of the stereotypical conservative.

    But as I have had to remind you numerous times, I am not a conservative. Rather, I am a Libertarian minded independent. You know, the folks that decide your elections.

    Keeping this in mind, thinking that you’ve got me by citing conservapedia leads you to compounded failure.
    Conservapedia is a consensus encyclopedia, and thus just like Wikipedia, is in fact entirely worthless.

    Discover the Networks however, is not a consensus encyclopedia, and therefore stands as a legitimate source of information. I imagine that this statement might make you weep. Aw…

    Unless your claiming that all those leftist kooks don’t comprise the make up of the FAS. Are you?

  58. lao says:

    Discover the Networks is a right wing source. So is free beacon, so is live leak.

    blount was happy to cite Obama’s 2009 speech as apparent evidence that he’s pushing “unilateral nuclear disarmament”.

    I quoted that speech to demonstrate blount, and you, are full of it,

  59. J says:

    Discover the Networks is a right wing source. So is free beacon, so is live leak.

    But you’re missing the point.

    They’re not a consensus source. It is the consensus nature of Wikis that makes Wikipedia and Conservapedia entirely worthless, not the extent to which they belong to the right or left. It’s why I feel fine citing leftist sources like MSNBC.

    blount was happy to cite Obama’s 2009 speech as apparent evidence that he’s pushing “unilateral nuclear disarmament”.

    Actually Mr. Blount cited an article that mentioned Obama’s 2009 speech. He didn’t cite the speech directly.

    I quoted that speech to demonstrate blount, and you, are full of it,

    But your demonstration failed.

  60. lao says:

    j you have been particularly inept today, no surprise actually.

    I could enjoy some more laughs.

    Attempt to defend blount’s headline, his editorial summary of the quote he provided and the caption to the picture.

  61. J says:

    Inept? But as an openly unintelligent child you just don’t have the experience or wisdom necessary to make these kinds of judgments. And lao, we’ve gone over this ground before.

    Remember, you’re the one who ignorantly cited consensus encyclopedias and independent non-partisan think tanks that are provably not. In fact, you couldn’t even discern which comment from Obama that I was asking you to quote.

    I’m sorry lao, but I’m afraid that we’ll have to continue working on your delusions in a future session. There is still hope that together we may find access for your return to reality.

  62. lao says:

    And j runs away.

    Thanks for trying to play.

  63. J says:

    No running away. I certainly can’t be expected to hold your hand indefinitely, and I simply have other matters to tend to that are more important than your delusions.

    There’s a reason that our sessions always end with you making insults worthy of a college sophomore, rather than debating point for point with facts, and it’s not because you know what you’re talking about.

    Though a projection about ineptitude might make you feel good temporarily, I think we both know that when you look in the mirror you’ll be taking stock of your stunning lack of cognitive skills.

    We both know the truth lao, don’t we.

    Consider this as you pontificate at your local hipster pub.

  64. lao says:

    j @6:36 I suggested you could address issues raised in the actual thread topic.

    For one who thinks so highly of his own intelligence as you do, this should be no problem at all.

    Go ahead and answer.

  65. DavidD says:

    The irony is strong with this One.

    This is the same President who said he could not unilaterally disavow super-PACs for the general election.

    And yet he’s willing to unilaterally give up our nuclear arsenal.

  66. Lao in Space says:

    Superior! Pretty bird! Pretty bird!

    SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAWK!

  67. Bloodless Coup says:

    Former FBI Agent: US Infiltrated at highest levels

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlvWXtDNnG4&feature=player_embedded

  68. Winston Smith says:

    Hopefully Mao Lao is ass raped by a Muslim – that would be poetic justice.


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy