Island Dog Island Dog

What Has Happened to Our Great Country?

▼

What Has Happened to Our Great Country?

from JoeUser Forums

Isn’t it funny for 8 years we heard the left scream how Bush “shredded” the Constitution, and they acted like they really cared?  Yeah.

“A very dangerous act is being attempted by the Left to secure their rule over the American people and transform the legislative process from a Constitutional Republic to a government by fiat. Today on Fox News Sunday, Democratic leader Rep. Chris Van Hollen admitted Democratsintend to use the unconstitutional “Slaughter Rule” as a solution to ram nationalized health care through Congress without majority vote and in defiance to the will of the American people.

The Slaughter rule would declare that the House of Representatives “deems” the Senate health care bill “passed” by the House. House members would have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but would then be able to claim they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself. In other words, Democrats will avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law! They will take over one-sixth of the US economy without voting on it in direct violation to the legislative process defined by the U.S Constitution. Article I, Section VII, Clause II specifically states,”

At last count I was reading this morning, democrats don’t have the votes they really need to pass this 2300+ page bill.  The White House and democrats have bribed as many people as they can, to the point of it possibly being illegal, so what’s the next step?  Simple, pass it regardless.

What has happened to our great country?

28,195 views 101 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top

You president is doing it's darn best to stop Iran from getting those nukes
End of quote

Hahah...that was funny.  Obama is weak, and could care less about Iran getting nukes.

 

You unemployment rate is nothing to scream "end of the world" yet.
End of quote

I'm not screaming end of the world, you are.  Real-world unemployment is near 20%, and it has a big effect on the economy. 

 

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hahah...that was funny. Obama is weak, and could care less about Iran getting nukes.
End of quote

How do you figure? How can you claim that? Is there anything Obama has done that lets you believe that he doesn't care about the state of nuclear proliferation in the Gulf region?

What kind of action would convince you that he actually is proactive about it? A military strike?

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do you know how the Russians got the atomic bomb in 1948?

Research? Stealing the works of the german's labs? Using german scientists in their own labs?
End of quote

You now it is difficult to teach someone that is unwilling to learn. Any one with reasoning skills could figure out that with the sheer cost and magnitude of the Manhattan Project, the Russians had received key assistance from sources other than the few captured German scientists they had. But I'll do your research for you, in case you want to respond in an informed manner:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/family.html PBS is that unbiased enough?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/spies/fuchs/1.html A longer read.

http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/13031/?a=f

Here is some modern stuff:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/spies/walker/1.html Remember this one?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-26-592200836_x.htm

 http://www.aim.org/special-report/russian-spies-targeted-and-used-clinton-official/

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/04/world/bonn-sniffs-for-russian-moles-worrying-cia.html?pagewanted=1

Here's a little info on your "German Scientist's helped" theory:

"In the United States in the 1950s, Russians were portrayed as "retarded folk who depended mainly on a few captured German scientists for their achieve­ments, if any." Russians, for their part, vehemently deny all claims of the German origins of the Soviet bomb and wield in their defense the statement of Max Steenbeck (a German theorist who pioneered supercritical centri­fuges for uranium enrichment in the USSR)  that "all talk that Germans have designed the bomb for the Sovi­ets is nonsense."

Sounds like for a young fellow, you have a 1950's  attitude on the subject. The whole document is here complete with citations http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/72pavel.pdf 

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

You now it is difficult to teach someone that is unwilling to learn.
End of quote

don't use innuendos if you wish me to learn something!

*checks*

Oh my, I guess the KGB was quite effective :beer:   Have they ever found the leak(s)?

Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top

Yes, I believe we put them on trial.  I can't remember their names but it was a couple.

The reason Russia isn't going to come to the table is because it has nothing to gain by coming to the table.  Iran isn't saying anything negative about Russia.  Russia using that situation to strengthen itself just like the pirates in the Gulf of Arden.  CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHEN A RUSSIA VESSEL GOT HIJACKED??????  Please!  I want to say that I'm misinformed.  I think even a Chinese vessel got Hijacked but I may be wrong.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

[quote who="Cikomyr" reply="16" id="2566012"] the "Democrats" are not a unified monolithic socialist entity like you make it seem. Nor are they anti-americans, nor do they act with the idea to "Destroy america" in their mind.[quote]

Not all Germans were Nazis, nor all Soviets communists.  But the LEADERS were and that was all it took.  Not all democrats are, but the LEADERS are and that is all it takes.

If I may give you a better insight on the perspective I am trying to give you, people have been predicting the USA's doom going as far back as a century ago. During Nixxon's era, people were saying that "We are all doomed". It's in the USA's nature to  have self-doubt and thinking that it is weak while it is actually extremely strong. You are a young but powerful culture after all.
End of quote

You channel Jimmy Carter very well. ;)

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 25
You president is doing it's darn best to stop Iran from getting those nukes. Problem is, there isn't a lot of option on the table that would actually work, and the little that would, well.. let's say that it needs Russia cooperation, and they aren't close.
End of Cikomyr's quote

No he is not doing his best.  He is doing his worst to make sure it comes about.  He is driven by a utopian ideology that has no basis in reality.  And when shown that his way is the wrong way, instead of correcting the deficiency, he doubles down.  It is no coincidence that the despots of the world have been emboldened by his election.  They see a spiny mealy mouth jelly fish that is a paper tiger. 

He loves to talk the talk, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he is incapable of walking the walk.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting the_Peoples_Party, reply 30
Yes, I believe we put them on trial.  I can't remember their names but it was a couple.
End of the_Peoples_Party's quote

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg here.  England is another kettle of spies in itself.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

No he is not doing his best. He is doing his worst to make sure it comes about. He is driven by a utopian ideology that has no basis in reality.
End of quote

Can you tell me, seriously, what kind of action taken would have convinced you that Obama is dealing with the Iranian problem? What is your benchmark for what you'd consider a proper action?

Because if what you consider a proper action is something that is simply politically/economically undesirable for everybody (ex: military strike), I am going to call you of bad faith. Asking your president to start another economical and energetic crisis just to prove a point is not being reasonable about the situation, but just wanting him to see coming down crashing regardless of the circumstances.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Can you tell me, seriously, what kind of action taken would have convinced you that Obama is dealing with the Iranian problem? What is your benchmark for what you'd consider a proper action?
End of quote

Do?  Simple.  Ostracize.  I do not (yet) condone bombing Iran.  They really do not merit it (they are pissing in their own pot).  But they should not be treated as equals in the stage of world leaders.  They are not.  Obama is trying to be their friend,and they bit his hand (that is a reflection of his myopia).  Obama is too stupid to understand one simple fact about humans.  Not all are saints.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do? Simple. Ostracize. I do not (yet) condone bombing Iran. They really do not merit it (they are pissing in their own pot). But they should not be treated as equals in the stage of world leaders. They are not.
End of quote

Ostracize? How do you Ostracize a country? You refuse to do trade with it? You refuse to talk to it?

You know, technically, not talking to Iran would have the exact same effect that right now. It would allow them to gain time without loosing any ground, as their regular trade partners will still be talking to them anyway.

Obama is trying to be their friend,and they bit his hand (that is a reflection of his myopia). Obama is too stupid to understand one simple fact about humans. Not all are saints.
End of quote

Waitwaitwaitwait. He is trying to be their friend? How do you figure? By calling for "Crippling sanctions"? For calling for softer sanctions when he realised that Russia and China won't follow him on that?

Is that how you make a friend? How exactly has Obama acted in a friendly way toward Iran?

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 36
Ostracize? How do you Ostracize a country? You refuse to do trade with it? You refuse to talk to it?

You know, technically, not talking to Iran would have the exact same effect that right now. It would allow them to gain time without loosing any ground, as their regular trade partners will still be talking to them anyway.
End of Cikomyr's quote

It is not easy, but has been done.  The reason that Iran did not kick Saddam's butt back in the 80s was because the US ostracized them.  Their military was falling apart.  And the reason that Saddam was over thrown so quickly in 2003 was for the same reason (there was cheating, but remember all those sob stories about starving Republican Guards?).  It is doable and effective, but not in the short term.  If you want immediate results, you have to bomb the hell out of them.  More effective, but again more dangerous from an international standpoint.

Waitwaitwaitwait. He is trying to be their friend? How do you figure? By calling for "Crippling sanctions"? For calling for softer sanctions when he realised that Russia and China won't follow him on that?

Is that how you make a friend? How exactly has Obama acted in a friendly way toward Iran?
End of quote

Love that - waitwaitwait!!  calling for?  I am calling for a million dollars!  So what?  I am calling for world peace.  So what?  Empty words.  There is no force behind them.  They know he is a paper tiger so the rest of the world ignores him!  In Obama's case, he can crap in one hand and "call for" in the other.  Guess one will produce results?

EVERY president has had the problem of Russia and China (Or German and Japan).  None have been this ineffectual.  Why would they listen to him?  They know they can make him back down.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

calling for? I am calling for a million dollars! So what? I am calling for world peace. So what? Empty words. There is no force behind them. They know he is a paper tiger so the rest of the world ignores him! In Obama's case, he can crap in one hand and "call for" in the other. Guess one will produce results?
End of quote

Well, pry tell me, what do you call his negociation rounds? I mean, he did went to many countries trying to convince Iran's partners to enforce sanctions. There is a limit on what you can do.

It is not easy, but has been done. The reason that Iran did not kick Saddam's butt back in the 80s was because the US ostracized them. Their military was falling apart. And the reason that Saddam was over thrown so quickly in 2003 was for the same reason (there was cheating, but remember all those sob stories about starving Republican Guards?). It is doable and effective, but not in the short term. If you want immediate results, you have to bomb the hell out of them. More effective, but again more dangerous from an international standpoint.
End of quote

How can you do that if Russia and China won't even join you in the ostracizing? I mean, what is the point of sanctions, ostracize that are violated by Iran's main trade partners anyway?

There is little that can be done by diplomacy. There disaster that can be done by military strikes. That's the problem Obama is facing. Obama hasn't really made any more headways in the problem than Bush.

EVERY president has had the problem of Russia and China (Or German and Japan). None have been this ineffectual.
End of quote

So you are effectively comparind 1 year of mandate to all the other presidencies? I don't buy your criticism. The guy has tried to build sanctions against Iran. He is keeping, even reinforcing most of the military deals done with Poland to oppose Russia, but Russia still got a free hand in the region. It's a problem that has started under Bush and won't take a few months to resolve.

The USA are about as influencial world-wide as they were at the end of the Bush era. There haven't been new wildfires erupting because you changed president.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 38
Well, pry tell me, what do you call his negociation rounds? I mean, he did went to many countries trying to convince Iran's partners to enforce sanctions. There is a limit on what you can do.
End of Cikomyr's quote

When?  Where?  Not in this reality.

How can you do that if Russia and China won't even join you in the ostracizing? I mean, what is the point of sanctions, ostracize that are violated by Iran's main trade partners anyway?
End of quote

Hmmm... seems we were treated daily to stories about starving Iraqis - even though France, Germany and Russia cheated.  Seems to me we were treated to daily stories of dead iranians - even though they were palling with China.

There is little that can be done by diplomacy. There disaster that can be done by military strikes. That's the problem Obama is facing. Obama hasn't really made any more headways in the problem than Bush.
End of quote

That is where we diverge.  I say nothing has been done yet by diplomacy.  As indicated earlier "call for" is not diplomacy, it is lip service.  Obama has a lot of lip, but not much else.

So you are effectively comparind 1 year of mandate to all the other presidencies? I don't buy your criticism. The guy has tried to build sanctions against Iran. He is keeping, even reinforcing most of the military deals done with Poland to oppose Russia, but Russia still got a free hand in the region. It's a problem that has started under Bush and won't take a few months to resolve.
End of quote

Again lip service versus action.  The world knows that Obama is not good on his words, so they do not pay him heed.  Look at the last 4 presidents (that would exclude Carter which would be the model for Obama) in their first year.  There was not this much impotence in those 4 combined.  it is not a matter of time, it is simply a matter of intent.  Obama only talks, and does no more (except to our allies - then he acts like a bully).  All the others backed up their "talk" with steel.

The USA are about as influencial world-wide as they were at the end of the Bush era. There haven't been new wildfires erupting because you changed president.
End of quote

Unlike a Forest, wild fires do not spring up over night.  The reason there have been none is because Bush ensured there would be none.  But since Bush, NK has launched a missle at Hawaii, Iran has set a time table for a Nuke, and Russia and China have told Obama to go to hell.  Not bad for a year.  It will only get worse.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again lip service versus action. The world knows that Obama is not good on his words, so they do not pay him heed. Look at the last 4 presidents (that would exclude Carter which would be the model for Obama) in their first year. There was not this much impotence in those 4 combined. it is not a matter of time, it is simply a matter of intent. Obama only talks, and does no more (except to our allies - then he acts like a bully). All the others backed up their "talk" with steel.
End of quote

You know, I just looked up to get some information on Reagan's first year in office, and I can hardly find anything more than lip service there too. However, he put into motions many elements that only became evident in his latter years in office.

Unlike a Forest, wild fires do not spring up over night. The reason there have been none is because Bush ensured there would be none. But since Bush, NK has launched a missle at Hawaii, Iran has set a time table for a Nuke, and Russia and China have told Obama to go to hell. Not bad for a year. It will only get worse.
End of quote

Your view of reality is... questionnable..

Well, pry tell me, what do you call his negociation rounds? I mean, he did went to many countries trying to convince Iran's partners to enforce sanctions. There is a limit on what you can do.

When? Where? Not in this reality.
End of quote

He met with Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, U.K., France, Germany, Israel, Turkey and quite a few other less influential countries. He managed to get compromises out of some, not so much out of others.

Hmmm... seems we were treated daily to stories about starving Iraqis - even though France, Germany and Russia cheated.
End of quote

Yet, ostracizing won't do anything to stop Iran from getting nukes, which is the initial beef you peoples seemed to have about Obama. There is just no easy options on the table for your nation about it.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

You know, I just looked up to get some information on Reagan's first year in office, and I can hardly find anything more than lip service there too. However, he put into motions many elements that only became evident in his latter years in office.
End of quote

Hehehe - yea that is why Iran released the hostages as soon as he was sworn in.  Like Fonzie said, you dont have to get into a fight all the time, but you had to have hit someone  once.  I think Reagan demonstrated that.  he did not say "Let's talk", he said here is the rules.  And those that would not play, paid.  That is the legacy of his Presidency.

Your view of reality is... questionnable..
End of quote

Geez!  Can you get any more politically correct?  just say whacked, insane, stupid, moronic.....

He met with Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, U.K., France, Germany, Israel, Turkey and quite a few other less influential countries. He managed to get compromises out of some, not so much out of others.
End of quote

On what?  I meat with the Rajah of India to discuss the price of rice in china.  That helped world peace, right?  He also bowed to everyone that he could get to.  That showed a strong leader!!! (not)

Yet, ostracizing won't do anything to stop Iran from getting nukes, which is the initial beef you peoples seemed to have about Obama. There is just no easy options on the table for your nation about it.
End of quote

Now?  no.  It is too late.  It was not too late a year ago.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hehehe - yea that is why Iran released the hostages as soon as he was sworn in. Like Fonzie said, you dont have to get into a fight all the time, but you had to have hit someone once.
End of quote

Wait.

It has been proven that Iran was ready to release the hostages before Reagan take office, but the Republicans wanted to use it as a publicity stunt.

Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with the liberation. The hostages were actually held longer because of his P.R. team.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

Geez! Can you get any more politically correct? just say whacked, insane, stupid, moronic.....
End of quote

You deserve better

On what? I meat with the Rajah of India to discuss the price of rice in china. That helped world peace, right? He also bowed to everyone that he could get to. That showed a strong leader!!! (not)
End of quote

You just want to criticise him no matter what happens, no matter what he does, apparently. You don't want to see anything he might have done, as it is just funnier/more political to blame him for whatever happens or doesn't.

In short, a Nay-sayer. The very kind of mentality that prevented any kind of compromise on Obama's part in the recent debate over healthcare.

Now? no. It is too late. It was not too late a year ago.
End of quote

It was too late a year ago. It wasn't too late 5 years ago.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wait.

It has been proven that Iran was ready to release the hostages before Reagan take office, but the Republicans wanted to use it as a publicity stunt.

Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with the liberation. The hostages were actually held longer because of his P.R. team.
End of quote

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, he took office in Jan 1981. Before that, during the campaign, he made it clear he was not going to take any crap off the Iranians. So kindly explain how he managed to work that out with the Ayatollah? (feel free to show your proof, though) Some like something one might read in a Jimmy Carter apologist's article. If president elects are so potent, why didn't the Taliban surrender when Obama on his inauguration?

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, he took office in Jan 1981. Before that, during the campaign, he made it clear he was not going to take any crap off the Iranians. So kindly explain how he managed to work that out with the Ayatollah? (feel free to show your proof, though) Some like something one might read in a Jimmy Carter apologist's article. If president elects are so potent, why didn't the Taliban surrender when Obama on his inauguration?
End of quote

Oh.. maybe you are right.

Hell. The hostages have been released minutes after Reagan's inauguration. I mean, Reagan sure was efficient about it, eh? It takes me longer to cook a pizza. One really has to wonder why he wasn't simply the Second Coming of Christ.

/sarcasm

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

One really has to wonder why he wasn't simply the Second Coming of Christ.
End of quote

Not that, just a man that would do what he said would. He didn't campaign on "no-precondition talks" with the Ayatollah (sound familiar yet?). The Iranians must have believed that too, why do any favors for the next administration of the Great Satan? Something you can't seem to explain away with your attempt at sarcasm.

I will give you an out, just say you saw it on Canadian TV, or MSNBC.;)

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

He didn't campaign on "no-precondition talks" with the Ayatollah (sound familiar yet?). The Iranians must have believed that too, why do any favors for the next administration of the Great Satan?
End of quote

Actually, the accords signed that allowed the released was signed the day before.

In the end, Carter was the one who managed to get the hostage freed. In the end, Reagan did nothing in his 1st mandate but publicity stunts and lip service.

Didn't stopped him, however. He ended up being a great president. However, you decide to be harsher on Obama than you are on Reagan.

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 42
Wait.

It has been proven that Iran was ready to release the hostages before Reagan take office, but the Republicans wanted to use it as a publicity stunt.

Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with the liberation. The hostages were actually held longer because of his P.R. team.
End of Cikomyr's quote

Uh, no.  That was"alleged" (and where the democrats coined the phrase that it was not the evidence that mattered, but the seriousness of the charges), but there was never any evidence to support it.  In other words, the democrats lied.

But you are partially right.  Once Reagan won, the Iranians backed down in a hurry!  I have said their leaders were crazy, ut I have never said they were stupid.

You just want to criticise him no matter what happens, no matter what he does, apparently. You don't want to see anything he might have done, as it is just funnier/more political to blame him for whatever happens or doesn't.

In short, a Nay-sayer. The very kind of mentality that prevented any kind of compromise on Obama's part in the recent debate over healthcare.
End of quote

Actually, I have been good about keeping my tongue with Obama for the first year.  I did not vote for him, and for the most part he has done exactly what I expected he would do (I was not blinded by his teleprompter).  But I have never seen him as a smart man (not more than an ordinary politician), but I had hoped he was at least an honest man.

When I say that Obama has done worse than I expected, I am actually not talking about his policies, but his integrity.  The amount of lies and deceits the man has perpertrated since coming into office is worse than any newly elected president.  SHould he have the opportunity, he will make Nixon look like a saint.  And that is why he gets no quarter from me. 

I am not a nay sayer, but then I am very critical of thugs.  Obama has proven himself to be just a common ordinary thug (the first president to publically pick fights with major media outlets and individuals - that is beneath the office) and bully.  And for that he gets no respect from me.

But then I do have the luxury of not being in politics, so I do not have to be politically correct.  As for his lak of compromise, that was his choice.  He had the majorities and never sought to compromise.  It is not my attitude that hurt him.  It was his own arrogance and bullying that did.

 

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

In the end, Carter was the one who managed to get the hostage freed. In the end, Reagan did nothing in his 1st mandate but publicity stunts and lip service.
End of quote

No, Carter did no such thing.  The release of the hostages was Iran's final tweak of Carter's nose.  The knew they could because they knew Carter was a sop.  Reagan they did fear.  His overwelming election showed them that America and Reagan had had enough of their shenanigans.

Stupid people wait to be bloodied before they back down.  Smart people know how to read the signs and avoid an ass whooping.  Iran was stupid.  Crazy, but not stupid.

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, Carter did no such thing. The release of the hostages was Iran's final tweak of Carter's nose. The knew they could because they knew Carter was a sop. Reagan they did fear. His overwelming election showed them that America and Reagan had had enough of their shenanigans.
End of quote

Funny how you claim that I cannot claim to understand american mentality, yet you seem to be able to read the Iranian's mind. Both in the past and right now. "Obama is not respected by the Iranians, North Korea". Pry tell me how I can acquire such mind-reading skill, so I could apply it on the USA.