At Hiroshima Memorial, Obama Says Nuclear Arms Require ‘Moral Revolution’

You still carrying that beat down you got yesterday like a cross, eh?

Sorry you embarrassed yourself so profoundly that you can't let it go.

Surely do. Pity you can't refute his articles and that he frightens you to the point of soiling yourself in public. When you have to ridicule the author and run screaming in fear from his work, it's most telling.

Ah, yes. Cherry picking one bit out of context from three complete web articles is something you clearly think will distract people from your empty blathering and bluster.

Thanks for admitting Obama's simply not socialist and you don't have the intellectual horsepower to demonstrate otherwise.

Here, after you've dried your tears and changed your Hello Kitty undies, have some more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opinion/obama-the-socialist-not-even-close.html?_r=0

 

Japanese museums portray Japan as the victim in WW II, ignoring their military takeover of Asia and the unprovoked attack on the U.S. Obama's behavior will only validate Japanese feelings of victimization.

Have they ever apologized for Pearl Harbor?

 

Thanks for giving a preview of the rest of your post. It helps set the bar really low, but for anyone familiar with your posting history, that bar is already pretty low, if we're being honest.

Those don't sound like "facts", but opinions.

During Obama's Presidency China has been grabbing islands in the Pacific and just claimed ownership of 1200 miles of the South China Sea, a valuable shipping area for the rest of the world. Clearly they have become more imperialistic during this weak Democratic President's reign.

Cuba is a 3rd world socialist hell hole of a nation and Obama restarted trade with them, benefitting the Castro dictators who run the country.

ISIS came about from Obama's decision to pull out forces in Iraq (defying the recommendation of military generals to leave a force behind to keep the region stable), remove Gaddafi from power (allowing ISIS to fill the void), and arm "rebels" in Syria against Assad.

I bet while you were eagerly standing in line to vote for Obama in 2008 you were thinking "gee, I hope he gets us involved in more Middle East conflicts!"

Army smaller than at any point since WWII, we have less Naval ships since any point since before WW1. Obama, following the typical left-wing pattern, wants to decrease the size of the military so he can build up a bigger welfare state for his parasitic illegal alien voting base.

There's plenty of evidence. If you weren't a left-wing ideologue you'd be able to gain this evidence from watching D'Souza's 2016. But, you won't.

Then why is he calling for an end to nuclear weapons in Japan? What was the point of this tax-payer funded multimillion dollar Obama trip to Japan, then?

They're the folks who burn American flags and spit on veterans. They view America as a slaver nation, with the founders being a bunch of immoral, greedy, genocidal white men. They view the Constitution as an antiquated document that needs to be done away with or rewritten. I disagree, I think left-wing Democrats hate this country very much, and their actions prove it.

 

LGF. What a joke.

Years ago I used to be a regular on that site. I don't know if you were aware of it, but LGF was a big-time Right wing, pro-Israel blog, with heavy net traffic.

But for some reason, the creator, Charles Johnson, did a 180 and went completely to the Left (I think it was around 200. Ever since then, the blog took a dive, at least in comparison to how it used to be.

 

What a total cop-out on your part. I read the links, I always read the links in a post before responding. Obviously, you did not read your own links and have been caught. Don't be a useful idiot for the communists, think for yourself. As soon as the communists are through with you, they will throw you into the heap with all the rest of us.

 

Thanks for prefacing your post with an adviso that you were just going to grandstand any ineffectually bray in your usual manner, with nothing to back up your hair-on-fire claims except your own rather pathetic fantasy life.

Those are facts. I understand they frighten you, so get in your safe place before reading my posts.

Yes, and? They've been actively disputing territories in that region for decades. They forced down a US intelligence plan and held its occupants hostage during his predecessor's admin. They've been on such a footing for some time now, it's just escape your sub-simian powers of observation.

Which doesn't magically make them 'on the rise' in any particularly meaningful way, and opening up trade is called 'diplomacy'. It's what a president does. It's nothing you'd understand.

ISIS? Wrong, and a PRATT. It's been debunked so often it's not even worth going into it.[/quote]

I bet while you were eagerly standing in line to vote for Obama in 2008 you were thinking "gee, I hope he gets us involved in more Middle East conflicts!" [/quote]

I'll be you wish you could move to a state where felons have voting rights.

Again: so what? That doesn't demonstrate any decline relative to any other militaries we might face, and you have not demonstrated any harmful affect of those figures. Nice fail.

Ah, yes. There is finally it. You psycho-babble blathering about magical things that only exist in your head.

He's even more bat(*)(*)(*)(*) loonytunes that you are. And THAT'S some loonytunes.

Please demonstrate that he's getting rid of our nuclear arsenal or simply end up eating your own words, like you always do.

Burning the flag is free speech. Why do you hate free speech? You sound like a damned Marxist.

And spitting on veterans? Really? That tired old canard? No wonder you're never taken seriously around here.

I think you're simply not worth the time and, frankly, rather unstable.

Go ahead and have the last word. Your lunacy simply isn't worth the time.

Welcome to Planet Ignore: Population: you.

 

Yawn. No, you didn't, as they utterly made my case. Why be so dishonest? You sound like a Marxist.

Why be a Marxist? It's a failed ideology.

- - - Updated - - -

Good to see you admit you're unable to address the issue.

 

Perhaps you should re-read some of your own posts whenever you have the chance, and see how often you stick with the topic 100%.

Mr. Perfect.

 

Obama assists highly unstable rogue state Iran in getting a nuclear bomb and then lectures on the morality of nuclear weapons. Classic leftist duplicity

 

Would that be the imaginary "beatdown" where you mistakenly claimed why Roy Moore violated a federal court order was material to his suspension?

Hilarious.

By the way, your intellectually defective arguments are your cross to bear - rest assured I'm not carrying your burden.

Wow - Who knew scatological fantasies were your gig?

Okaaaaaaay...

As for the Leftist hack you dragged in to think for you, he is worthy of ridicule. Anyone who claims the president is in charge of state and local budgets is an ignoramus.

One didn't need to look far into your Leftist hack's "rebuttal" to discover the inferior quality of the material presented. Maybe next time you'll pick someone who can pass a Civics 101 class. In fact, I suggest that you do.

Thanks for imagining that.

I noticed you still haven't addressed the questions I posed to CB, which requires some independent thinking on your part, not someone else.

Did you bleat something about "intellectual horsepower"?

Am I supposed to be impressed with your ad hominem sandbox antics and failure to think for yourself?

Brewksier is right - when you set the bar, you set it LOW...

 

Bill Ayers is an example of how useless the new left was. He did nothing but send a couple of bombs that could have done nothing but cause pointless death at worst and ultimately ended up being nothing more than a nuisance and a form of vandalism.

People say they're going to do things a lot. Obama, like many people who do so, didn't actually do it.

Please, like the New Deal, it was only an effort at preserving capitalism by making concessions.

Not socialists, because socialists recognize that working within the system is absurd. Even social democrats like Bernie aren't quite fixtures of the establishment.

The USSR post-1953 was nothing but a social-imperialist sham state. They're largely responsible for the state of Cuba now due to Krushchev's division of labour turning Cuba into a sugar producing colony. The USSR under the revisionist clique begun by Krushchev did nothing but undermine socialism and the self-determination of nations.

Naturally, they backed people with no chance of actually fixing things.

Good. The New Left didn't accomplish anything because it was nothing but a bunch of petulant youth wanting to smoke weed. The fact that the 60s counterculture grew up to be the yuppies and today's aging baby boomers who robbed their own children of a future is not a coincidence.

 

Pity you turned tail and ran when you couldn't back up your own claims and that it's clearly wounded you. Eh, not my problem.

They're not. I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em.

And since you cannot attack the actual arguments made, you attack the messenger. The sure sign of a weak mind and no rhetorical capability. Pity.

You don't have to keep admitting you couldn't counter his arguments. Once is more than enough.

The questions you asked do not indicate in any way that he's a socialist. That you're too stupid to see that isn't really surprising, nor have you offered anything of substance that he is one.

LOL! Can't take what you dish out, Tinkerbell? And I notice you're running in desperation from the other link I provided.

You make this too easy.

What's it like? Living in fear and never making a rational argument?

 

How helpful was getting Iran to give up all their enriched uranium and heavy water? Did that assist their program?

 

It's time to take your own advice. School is in session.

This is an example of a substantive rebuttal where one thinks and argues for one's self.

Note how it is lacking the ad hominem sandbox antics and flights of hysterical fancy that you are fond of substituting for a mature, rational and reasonable argument:

I'll get back with you momentarily, CB...

 

Obama has given Iran hundreds of billions of dollars and much needed technical aid and "mentoring" for their nuclear program (a nation sitting atop a sea of oil Iran claims they need it for their country's energy).
In ten years Iran will have NO limitations on their ability to build a nuclear weapon and they will be perfectly free to build one, according to this horrible deal.
And with the aid and money Obama promised the Mullahs, there is little doubt anyone can stop them.

Along with N. Korea Iran is the globe's premier rogue state and Obama has done everything he could to take their shackles off so they can destabilize the area and the world. Is that your idea of a good deal for everyone?

 

Lulz. Odd that you would complain about ad homs when you yourself resort to them with such frequency and relish. Somewhat hypocritical, I must say.

But then, I haven't ever seen you post any cogent argument substantiated anything rational, and I suppose you have to post something, so.....

Notice how his answers exposed your questions as the vapid absurdity they actually are.

I choose not to waste my time give solid answers to questions that weren't meant to be taken seriously in the first place.

Sorry that bothers you.

 

Iran is using that money already to buy defensive conventional weapons and to improve infrastructure. How does that aid their nuclear program?

Also if you had an asset that was highly lucrative on the world market, would you want to waste it by burning it in power plants or would you want to find an alternative power supply so you could sell that product on the world market?

 

When's Obama going to Russia to apologise for winning the Cold War?

 

Are you on the Mullah's payroll that you know how Iran is spending their money? And does by spending money somewhere else preclude the possibility that Iran is also spending money to enlarge and modernize their nuclear capabilities? I think not.

I didn't realize that powering their own nation's energy needs
was "wasting" their oil.

 

Pity your delusions of grandeur.

When you repeat an incorrect argument over and over again there comes a point where there's no point in responding. I feel no need to watch you wound yourself over and over again.

Evidently they are, otherwise you wouldn't have expressed them. Why you felt compelled to do so is anyone's guess, but I'm not interested in hearing them. In the future please stick to the subject.

I already attacked them, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned the poor quality of the material.

As for the messenger, his bias is indeed worthy of consideration and mention.

Again, spare me your fantasies and stick to the subject. Once is more than enough to point out that the president doesn't control state and local budgets.

And unlike CB, you have failed to counter my points yourself.

Sure, they do, and you haven't even addressed them. Dismissed.

Back to ad hominem sandbox antics...

 

Newp. Just the cold, hard facts. Things you clearly have an aversion to.

Newp. Your projection about fecal fantasies duly noted.

Yes, you feebly attempted to, and utterly failed to demonstrate how they're wrong. Cherry picking one citation out of three complete web pages of arguments seems to be a 'victory' you're clearly desperate enough to cling to. You take that and run with it, sport.

And yet you haven't demonstrated any bias, whatsoever, that affects the content of what I linked to. Yet more fail.

I accept your admission that you cannot rebut his arguments that Obama is not a socialist and must run from them in fear.

LOL! You haven't made any rational or cogent points relevant to the topic to counter.

You can lie to yourself all you'd like, but I'm not buying the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you're selling.

Yawn.. Yet again you cannot take what you dish out.

Good luck with your magical thinking. You're going to need it.

 

1. Feel free to demonstrate how the nuclear deal has provided any material aid to Iran's nuclear program. Not "it might in the future".

2. If you could benefit more from selling it on the open market, yes it is wasting it.

 

You are just digging your hole deeper. Everyone here knows you are caught, you googled and did a quick cut-and-paste of links without reading anything more than the title - that was lazy and foolish but can be excused when the error is admitted. But by not admitting your obvious mistake, you compound the mistake and show yourself a fool in front of the entire forum.

 

You apparently know nothing about the deal Obama cut with the Mullahs so why are you arguing about it?
Central to the agreement is Obama helping the Iranian nuclear program. Non proliferation is a joke. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424645/iran-deal-nuclear-weapons-non-proliferation

The question is would they benefit more?
You haven't remotely shown that and you must think setting up an extensive grid of nuclear power plants is as easy as flipping on a light switch.

 

Useless? I'm surprised you could say such a thing.

The North Vietnamese Communists admitted that they would have never been able to win the Vietnam War if it wasn't for the anti-war Left's effort to lose the war here in America. Furthermore, Ayers, like so many other New Leftists, are busy indoctrinating a new generation of "progressives" to keep The Faith alive. I'd say Ayers and the New Left have been anything but useless.

Well, Obama has to deal with the constraints he faces - he doesn't have free reign to do what he wants.

Did the New Deal seek to nationalize elements of the private sector as Harry Reid confessed ObamaCare was aimed at bringing our HC system under government control?

Consider Clement Attlee. He wasn't able to nationalize the entire British economy but he did succeed in bringing some of the private sector under government control. Did that make him any less of a socialist?

Of course, socialists punish the private sector. Left to their own devices they would destroy it completely.

LOL - Damn those revisionists! Eduard Bernstein should rot in Hell!

But seriously, the revisionists merely realized the shortcomings of socialism/communism in practice. They understood that we don't live in a theoretical world.

I applaud you for criticizing the imperialist nature of the Soviet regime, but unfortunately the failures associated with the socialist/communist experiment are the failures you get with socialism/communism in practice. It just doesn't work - Ludwig von Mises pointed that out the year the USSR was born.

I didn't mean that in a good way. I meant that the New Left is becoming more authoritarian like the Old Left.

How did Baby Boomers rob their children of a future?
.