Supreme Court weighs whales vs war preparation

[red states rule]

So what is more important? The security of the US or whales?



WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court will have the final say on whether war preparation trumps whale protection.

Acting at the Bush administration's urging, the court agreed Monday to review a federal appeals court ruling that limited the use of sonar in naval training exercises off Southern California's coast because of its potential to harm marine mammals.

Sonar, which the Navy relies on to locate enemy submarines, can interfere with whales' ability to navigate and communicate. There is also evidence that the technology has caused whales to strand themselves on shore.

The Navy argues that the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco jeopardizes its ability to train sailors and Marines for service in wartime in exchange for a limited environmental benefit. The Navy says it has already taken steps to protect beaked whales, dolphins and other creatures in balancing war training and environmental protections, officials said.

The Supreme Court case could settle the issue.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080623/D91G0N980.html

[crin63]

Whales are awesome. I loved watching them breach the water along the California coast. But human life is far and away more important. If its the only military option for training and/or defense, bye bye whales.

[red states rule]

Whales are awesome. I loved watching them breach the water along the California coast. But human life is far and away more important. If its the only military option for training and/or defense, bye bye whales.

The ocean is a big place. I am sure the whales can swim away. If they are stupid and beach themselves, that is their problem

[retiredman]

actually, active sonar is a mixed blessing at best. enemy subs can easily detect us and ascertain our force composition long before the surface combatants can detect them using active sonar. Within a half hour, the enemy can use ekelund ranging to ascertain the precise location of our task force and launch OTH cruise missile strikes against us. We are much better off staying passive and using SSN ASW screens to detect enemy submarines beyond surface ship active sonar range long before they can develop a fire control solution.

[Silver]

actually, active sonar is a mixed blessing at best. enemy subs can easily detect us and ascertain our force composition long before the surface combatants can detect them using active sonar. Within a half hour, the enemy can use ekelund ranging to ascertain the precise location of our task force and launch OTH cruise missile strikes against us. We are much better off staying passive and using SSN ASW screens to detect enemy submarines beyond surface ship active sonar range long before they can develop a fire control solution.

Wow, wow and super wow.....

Mfm you must send this important information to all the Admirals and surely the Sec. of the Navy immediately.....and be sure to use all those mysterious letters....OTH, SSN, ASW, FU, ASHO, DIMFK, MRON, TRATOR, etc......
Our county could be at risk without this intell.....:lame2:

[retiredman]

Wow, wow and super wow.....

Mfm you must send this important information to all the Admirals and surely the Sec. of the Navy immediately.....and be sure to use all those mysterious letters....OTH, SSN, ASW, FU, ASHO, DIMFK, MRON, TRATOR, etc......
Our county could be at risk without this intell

they all already know it. trust me.:lol:

oh, and fyi...

OTH= Over The Horizon
SSN= nuclear powered fast attack submarine
ASW= Anti-Submarine Warfare.

[Silver]

Well hell, the Navy should have no problem putting the whales before the saftey of US ships and the lives and welfare of US sailors....just like you would ....

[retiredman]

Well hell, the Navy should have no problem putting the whales before the saftey of US ships and the lives and welfare of US sailors....just like you would ....

you clearly did not understand my first post.

and your gratuitous insults add nothing, btw.

[April15]

As the conservative republicans of this nation are hell bent on creating armagedden why worry about whales when in ten years we will all be extinct at the hands of the republicans!

[Abbey Marie]

Go whales!

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/humpback-whales-singing.jpg

http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/whales/WhaleFluke.jpg

[Gaffer]

It's a matter of national security and peoples lives. Why is this being argued in the legal system? Answer, too many god damn lawyers in washington.

[Sitarro]

actually, active sonar is a mixed blessing at best. enemy subs can easily detect us and ascertain our force composition long before the surface combatants can detect them using active sonar. Within a half hour, the enemy can use ekelund ranging to ascertain the precise location of our task force and launch OTH cruise missile strikes against us. We are much better off staying passive and using SSN ASW screens to detect enemy submarines beyond surface ship active sonar range long before they can develop a fire control solution.

In other words, the Navy consists of a bunch of multi billion dollar sitting ducks........ good to know.

[retiredman]

In other words, the Navy consists of a bunch of multi billion dollar sitting ducks........ good to know.

no. that is a purposeful and ignorant misinterpretation of my words.

[red states rule]

Wow, wow and super wow.....

Mfm you must send this important information to all the Admirals and surely the Sec. of the Navy immediately.....and be sure to use all those mysterious letters....OTH, SSN, ASW, FU, ASHO, DIMFK, MRON, TRATOR, etc......
Our county could be at risk without this intell.....:lame2:

We could be at risk if he was still on active duty

[retiredman]

We could be at risk if he was still on active duty

insulting veterans again, I see? :lol:

[red states rule]

insulting veterans again, I see? :lol:

Only you, our resident surrender monkey who wants to appease our nations enemies

Keep using your service as a crutch, it is one of the few things you do well

[retiredman]

Only you, our resident surrender monkey who wants to appease our nations enemies

Keep using your service as a crutch, it is one of the few things you do well


I have NEVER advocated appeasing any enemy and you cannot find one single post from me where I ever did.

I dare you.

[red states rule]

I have NEVER advocated appeasing any enemy and you cannot find one single post from me where I ever did.

I dare you.

Oh please, you are a proud member of the Dem party which stands for appeasing terrorists and disarming the US military

[retiredman]

Oh please, you are a proud member of the Dem party which stands for appeasing terrorists and disarming the US military


find one post where I have EVER advocated appeasing our enemies or disarming the US military.

I'll wait.

[red states rule]

find one post where I have EVER advocated appeasing our enemies or disarming the US military.

I'll wait.

You support the libs that want surrender in Iraq and want to appease the terrorists

Your boy Obama has his chain saw ready to tear into the US military

So you must support those views. Just as you have defended the slurs and smears they made toward the troops

So keep acting outraged and playing the role of the offened lib

[retiredman]

still waiting

::yawn::

[red states rule]

How Obama will destroy the US military. No wonder terrorists are endorsing the messiah



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7o84PE871BE&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7o84PE871BE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[retiredman]

there is nothing in that speech that indicates his desire to destroy the US military.

Do you remember what Dwight D. Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex?

In case you don't know, he was a great republican president....before your time.

and I am STILL waiting. :lol:

[red states rule]

there is nothing in that speech that indicates his desire to destroy the US military.

Do you remember what Dwight D. Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex?

In case you don't know, he was a great republican president....before your time.

and I am STILL waiting. :lol:

Obama's defense cuts will disarm the US military. Again you are putting your party ahead of your country (and the troops)

[retiredman]

Obama's defense cuts will disarm the US military. Again you are putting your party ahead of your country (and the troops)

I disagree. I know full well that Obama's military budget will contain plenty of armament for our troops.

[red states rule]

I disagree. I know full well that Obama's military budget will contain plenty of armament for our troops.

Yea, he wants to cut new weapon systems, cut nukes, and surrender to terrorists

As Zell Miller asked about Kerry - "Forces armed with what? Spitballs?"

[retiredman]

Yea, he wants to cut new weapon systems, cut nukes, and surrender to terrorists

As Zell Miller asked about Kerry - "Forces armed with what? Spitballs?"

cutting some future weapons systems is not the same as "disarming the US military"

sorry

[red states rule]

cutting some future weapons systems is not the same as "disarming the US military"

sorry

That is only one stupid thing he wants to sdp. You must have watched the video with the sound off and just gazed at your boy's smile

[retiredman]

That is only one stupid thing he wants to sdp. You must have watched the video with the sound off and just gazed at your boy's smile

he does not say shit about disarming the US military. The US military is already so overarmed when compared to any enemy on the horizon it is silly.

We are armed to the teeth to defeat a multi-theater attack from the soviet menace.... we got more than enough big guns to take care of any of the pissant threats that confront us today OR tomorrow.

[red states rule]

he does not say shit about disarming the US military. The US military is already so overarmed when compared to any enemy on the horizon it is silly.

We are armed to the teeth to defeat a multi-theater attack from the soviet menace.... we got more than enough big guns to take care of any of the pissant threats that confront us today OR tomorrow.

The sopeech was made to a lib groups that wants to gut the military and put the money toward (shocker) welfare programs

To Obama the military is the bad guy.

Listen to what he says, but put down the Obama Kool Aid first

[retiredman]

The sopeech was made to a lib groups that wants to gut the military and put the money toward (shocker) welfare programs

To Obama the military is the bad guy.

Listen to what he says, but put down the Obama Kool Aid first

he does not say anything about disarming the US military.

He does not say anything about stopping existing weapons system funding.

I DID listen....clearly, you did not, or you don't know what the fuck you are talking about...or both.

[red states rule]

he does not say anything about disarming the US military.

He does not say anything about stopping existing weapons system funding.

I DID listen....clearly, you did not, or you don't know what the fuck you are talking about...or both.

Yea, the same way Obama never made a racist comment, has a terrorist fror a friend, or did not flip flop on public financing

Keep lying for your boy MFM, when the facts are gfoing against you it is all you can do

[retiredman]

Yea, the same way Obama never made a racist comment, has a terrorist fror a friend, or did not flip flop on public financing

Keep lying for your boy MFM, when the facts are gfoing against you it is all you can do


show me a quote from his little film clip where he says he will disarm the US military or even make ANY cuts to existing weapons systems.

Quit tap dancing and address the points you made that you cannot defend.... or retract them.... or run away

[red states rule]

show me a quote from his little film clip where he says he will disarm the US military or even make ANY cuts to existing weapons systems.

Quit tap dancing and address the points you made that you cannot defend.... or retract them.... or run away

Look asshole, Obama's own words are not even enough for you admit how he wants to destroy the US military

You are the worst kind of political hack. Party ahead of country and the troops

[actsnoblemartin]

Look asshole, Obama's own words are not even enough for you admit how he wants to destroy the US military

You are the worst kind of political hack. Party ahead of country and the troops

this is like watching World Wresting Entertainment: in this corner at 6'0 200 from Pennsylvania, the the conservative hammer, the liberal shredder..... Red States Rule

and his opponent, 5'11 190 from Maine, the democratic diesel, the conservative destroyer Maine Man

question is which one of you loses from getting hit with a chair :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Look asshole, Obama's own words are not even enough for you admit how he wants to destroy the US military

You are the worst kind of political hack. Party ahead of country and the troops

He does not say anything about destroying the US military. He does not say he will cut even one operational weapon system. He says nothing about "disarming the US military". True to form, you made a flatulent erroneous claim and now cannot back it up.

YOu have ALWAYS been all hat and no cattle.

[red states rule]

He does not say anything about destroying the US military. He does not say he will cut even one operational weapon system. He says nothing about "disarming the US military". True to form, you made a flatulent erroneous claim and now cannot back it up.

YOu have ALWAYS been all hat and no cattle.

You are keeping your record of lying about your boy on a daily basis intact

[retiredman]

You are keeping your record of lying about your boy on a daily basis intact


give me the quotes where he says anything about disarming the US military or crawl back under your rock.

[red states rule]

give me the quotes where he says anything about disarming the US military or crawl back under your rock.

Watch the video and this time actually listen to what he says

Something Obama supporters do not do

[retiredman]

Watch the video and this time actually listen to what he says

Something Obama supporters do not do

I listened to the whole thing. He NEVER says anything about disarming the US military. YOu are a liar. party over country for you.

[red states rule]

I listened to the whole thing. He NEVER says anything about disarming the US military. YOu are a liar. party over country for you.

This is a hoot. The serial liar calls someone else a liar

[retiredman]

This is a hoot. The serial liar calls someone else a liar

run away. your big mouth wrote a check that your ass can't cash. You are wrong and always run away from your misstatements because you cannot defend them and you are too much of a worm to ever retract them.

[red states rule]

run away. your big mouth wrote a check that your ass can't cash. You are wrong and always run away from your misstatements because you cannot defend them and you are too much of a worm to ever retract them.

Keep lying there old man. Then you wonder why people question your "integrity"

[retiredman]

Keep lying there old man. Then you wonder why people question your "integrity"

I am not lying. you are. YOU said that the tape showed Obama saying he would "disarm the US military". That is a lie.

My integrity is questioned because I am one of a handful of liberals who will stand up to the overwhelming conservative majority on this site.

you all and your cicle jerk rep clubs make me wanna puke.

[Abbey Marie]

Go whales! (Part deux)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:UNzRcUHCs9pytM:http://www.whale-images.com/images/killer-whale_breach.jpg


http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Whale-Jumping-Print-C10001366.jpeg

[Yurt]

I am not lying. you are. YOU said that the tape showed Obama saying he would "disarm the US military". That is a lie.

My integrity is questioned because I am one of a handful of liberals who will stand up to the overwhelming conservative majority on this site.

you all and your cicle jerk rep clubs make me wanna puke.

:clap: yay, then leave

[retiredman]

:clap: yay, then leave:fu:

[April15]

I am not lying. you are. YOU said that the tape showed Obama saying he would "disarm the US military". That is a lie.

My integrity is questioned because I am one of a handful of liberals who will stand up to the overwhelming conservative majority on this site.

you all and your cicle jerk rep clubs make me wanna puke.They are all shills for the GOP. No one could be this apollogetic on their own. I come here mostly for laughs.

[red states rule]

They are all shills for the GOP. No one could be this apollogetic on their own. I come here mostly for laughs.

Yea, the nerve of us pointing out what Obama said. Obama lovers can't uderstand peiople who refuse to bow at the alter of Barry

[retiredman]

Yea, the nerve of us pointing out what Obama said. Obama lovers can't uderstand peiople who refuse to bow at the alter of Barry

if you could have quoted Obama saying that he wanted to disarm the US military, you would have backed up that lie by now.... you cannot. When called to verify your outlandish bullshit, all you can EVER do is bluster and bullshit, spin and avoid.

Again. NOT ONE existing weapons system is mentioned. No military personnel are being "disarmed". YOu told a lie and don't have the grace to admit it.

[April15]

Yea, the nerve of us pointing out what Obama said. Obama lovers can't uderstand peiople who refuse to bow at the alter of BarryWho is Barry?

[red states rule]

Who is Barry?

Your boy Obama. That is what he was called in school by his classmates

[retiredman]

Your boy Obama. That is what he was called in school by his classmates
ignoring #50 and answering the softball instead.

fuckin' pussy:laugh2:

[red states rule]

ignoring #50 and answering the softball instead.

fuckin' pussy:laugh2:

I ahave asshole. You are still lying about what your boy said

Which is normal for you

[retiredman]

I ahave asshole. You are still lying about what your boy said

Which is normal for you

bullshit.

if you could have quoted Obama saying that he wanted to disarm the US military, you would have backed up that lie by now.... you cannot. When called to verify your outlandish bullshit, all you can EVER do is bluster and bullshit, spin and avoid.

Again. NOT ONE existing weapons system is mentioned. No military personnel are being "disarmed". You told a lie and don't have the grace to admit it.

[Gaffer]

I was doing some reading about this. Guess who's behind and funding the lawsuit? ..... China. Gee, they want to prevent our using sonar to detect their submarines, present and future. Once again outside forces want to use our court system against us.

[red states rule]

I was doing some reading about this. Guess who's behind and funding the lawsuit? ..... China. Gee, they want to prevent our using sonar to detect their submarines, present and future. Once again outside forces want to use our court system against us.

and the kook left is siding with them

What a shocker

[retiredman]

bullshit.

if you could have quoted Obama saying that he wanted to disarm the US military, you would have backed up that lie by now.... you cannot. When called to verify your outlandish bullshit, all you can EVER do is bluster and bullshit, spin and avoid.

Again. NOT ONE existing weapons system is mentioned. No military personnel are being "disarmed". You told a lie and don't have the grace to admit it.

again...RSR dodges the issue.

typical

[red states rule]

again...RSR dodges the issue.

typical

Already answred asswipe - with Barry's own words

He called for major cuts in defense spending, slowing the development of future combat systems, and cutting investments in America's ballistic missile defense program

[retiredman]

Already answred asswipe - with Barry's own words

He called for major cuts in defense spending, slowing the development of future combat systems, and cutting investments in America's ballistic missile defense program

he does not call for any cuts to existing weapons systems. He does not call for any US military forces to be "disarmed".

you lied, and don't have the guts to admit it.

why am I not surprised?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

he does not call for any cuts to existing weapons systems. He does not call for any US military forces to be "disarmed".

you lied, and don't have the guts to admit it.

why am I not surprised?:laugh2:

The "preacher" is breaking the 9th Commandment today over and over today

[retiredman]

The "preacher" is breaking the 9th Commandment today over and over today


you cannot back up your own statements. you are a liar.

[red states rule]

you cannot back up your own statements. you are a liar.

Pot meet kettle

[retiredman]

Pot meet kettle


I back up all my statements and I can string five sentences together without the help of CTRL-C/CTRL-V.

[red states rule]

I back up all my statements and I can string five sentences together without the help of CTRL-C/CTRL-V.

You post after a heavy dose of E-Lax

[retiredman]

You post after a heavy dose of E-Lax

run away little boy...fly fly

[red states rule]

run away little boy...fly fly

Tired of getting your head handed to you, and your wrinkled ass kicked?

[retiredman]

Tired of getting your head handed to you, and your wrinkled ass kicked?

when you can produce a quote from Obama where he says he wants to disarm the US military or even to reduce ANY existing weapons systems, you will have won this argument....

not until.

I'll wait.

[Yurt]

when you can produce a quote from Obama where he says he wants to disarm the US military or even to reduce ANY existing weapons systems, you will have won this argument....

not until.

I'll wait.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair-trigger alert…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

[retiredman]

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair-trigger alert…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

so. do you want us to maintain our nuclear arsenal - one that can decimate the planet multiple times over? Do you think that having a nuclear arsenal that can only decimate the entire planet two or three times is insufficient? Do you really think that deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals serve to "disarme the US military"?

be honest, yurt...if you can.

[manu1959]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#nuclear

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

reduce ANY existing weapons systems.........

[retiredman]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#nuclear

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

reduce ANY existing weapons systems.........

fell free to honestly answer #70 for yourself, manu.

[Yurt]

so. do you want us to maintain our nuclear arsenal - one that can decimate the planet multiple times over? Do you think that having a nuclear arsenal that can only decimate the entire planet two or three times is insufficient? Do you really think that deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals serve to "disarme the US military"?

be honest, yurt...if you can.

that was not your question, admit you are wrong, you said ANY

[Gaffer]

so. do you want us to maintain our nuclear arsenal - one that can decimate the planet multiple times over? Do you think that having a nuclear arsenal that can only decimate the entire planet two or three times is insufficient? Do you really think that deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals serve to "disarme the US military"?

be honest, yurt...if you can.

YES!

The purpose of having more than you need is if we are struck first we can still respond.

Deep cuts in anything serves to disarm our military.

Don't you think having more than we need is better than not having enough?

Do you actually believe obamanation is going to get countries like russia, china, pakistan, india and any others to get rid of all their nukes and let us verify it?

[retiredman]

that was not your question, admit you are wrong, you said ANY


oooh. Obama wants to decrease our military arsenal...like every president since JFK. I was WRONG not to acknowledge that (irrelevant) fact.

Good job counselor.
now answer MY question.

[retiredman]

YES!

The purpose of having more than you need is if we are struck first we can still respond.

Deep cuts in anything serves to disarm our military.

Don't you think having more than we need is better than not having enough?

Do you actually believe obamanation is going to get countries like russia, china, pakistan, india and any others to get rid of all their nukes and let us verify it?


bullshit. how is any islamic nation on the planet going to strike our nuclear capability first and limit our ability to respond??

I think that Obama will not unilaterally cut our arsenal unless he can verify cuts on the other side.

[Yurt]

oooh. Obama wants to decrease our military arsenal...like every president since JFK. I was WRONG not to acknowledge that (irrelevant) fact.

Good job counselor.
now answer MY question.

:lol: now you being dishonest... and manu nailed it too and i will not answer your question because you again altered what you were talking about


when you can produce a quote from Obama where he says he wants to disarm the US military or even to reduce ANY existing weapons systems, you will have won this argument....

not until.

I'll wait.

it was relevent then, but not now...hahaahahaha

man, racking em today....:laugh2:

[retiredman]

:lol: now you being dishonest... and manu nailed it too and i will not answer your question because you again altered what you were talking about



it was relevent then, but not now...hahaahahaha

man, racking em today....:laugh2:


you won't answer my question because you are scared.

I answered yours and admitted my error.

you are a putrid little pussy who cannot move beyong gotcha minutia.
let me know when you grow up.:fu:

and let me know when you want to apologize

[Gaffer]

bullshit. how is any islamic nation on the planet going to strike our nuclear capability first and limit our ability to respond??

I think that Obama will not unilaterally cut our arsenal unless he can verify cuts on the other side.

Who said anything about islamic nations? You are assuming a strike against us would be with one bomb. I'm referring to a STRIKE, hundreds of missiles. The cold war is over, but russia still has it's missiles and bombers. They have been flexing their muscles lately as well. China is developing ICBM systems. As are iran and north korea. There are plenty of countries in the world that are not our friends and are not islamic nations.

None of them are just going to give up their nukes and missile systems just because obamanation says they should. That's just a liberal fantasy.

[manu1959]

Who said anything about islamic nations? You are assuming a strike against us would be with one bomb. I'm referring to a STRIKE, hundreds of missiles. The cold war is over, but russia still has it's missiles and bombers. They have been flexing their muscles lately as well. China is developing ICBM systems. As are iran and north korea. There are plenty of countries in the world that are not our friends and are not islamic nations.

None of them are just going to give up their nukes and missile systems just because obamanation says they should. That's just a liberal fantasy.

remember when kerry wanted to secure all of russias nukes......like he could just strole in there and take over and tell russia what to do....

[Gaffer]

remember when kerry wanted to secure all of russias nukes......like he could just strole in there and take over and tell russia what to do....

Another one who lived in a fantasy land.

[manu1959]

Another one who lived in a fantasy land.

elitists are like that......just ask em......

[retiredman]

Who said anything about islamic nations? You are assuming a strike against us would be with one bomb. I'm referring to a STRIKE, hundreds of missiles. The cold war is over, but russia still has it's missiles and bombers. They have been flexing their muscles lately as well. China is developing ICBM systems. As are iran and north korea. There are plenty of countries in the world that are not our friends and are not islamic nations.

None of them are just going to give up their nukes and missile systems just because obamanation says they should. That's just a liberal fantasy.

we have overwhelming nuclear dominance in both warheads and operational delivery systems over all of the nuclear powers you mention. Obama said nothing about unilaterally reducing that dominance, and I do not believe he would take any steps in that direction without verifiable steps from our nuclear adversaries.

[actsnoblemartin]

anybody have the speech, or is this nothing more then a game of hearsay and speculation :poke:

[Yurt]

in a perfect world, getting rid of all nukes is grand, however, we do not live in a perfect world. blindly stating to get rid of all nuclear arsenal is naive. and here is one no one likes to admit, our nuclear arms avoided WWIII with the soviet union...for now, but so far, it has worked. nuclear weapons are here to stay. i only yearn someday for a place where no bombs of any kind will drop.

[retiredman]

in a perfect world, getting rid of all nukes is grand, however, we do not live in a perfect world. blindly stating to get rid of all nuclear arsenal is naive. and here is one no one likes to admit, our nuclear arms avoided WWIII with the soviet union...for now, but so far, it has worked. nuclear weapons are here to stay. i only yearn someday for a place where no bombs of any kind will drop.


no one blindly stated that they would unilaterally get rid of all nukes.

[Yurt]

no one blindly stated that they would unilaterally get rid of all nukes.

i never said they did, thanks for pointing out the obvious...i answered your question preacher

[manu1959]

anybody have the speech, or is this nothing more then a game of hearsay and speculation :poke:

it is posted on his website.....i posted the link...

[Gaffer]

we have overwhelming nuclear dominance in both warheads and operational delivery systems over all of the nuclear powers you mention. Obama said nothing about unilaterally reducing that dominance, and I do not believe he would take any steps in that direction without verifiable steps from our nuclear adversaries.

Actually we are about equal with russia. And obamanation did say he was going to reduce our fissile stock piles. And he intends to do that without anyone else reducing theirs. I don't like anything he has said about what he intends to do with the military and I sure don't believe him when he claims he won't gut the military. He'll pull a carter as soon as he's in office.

[manu1959]

i never said they did, thanks for pointing out the obvious...i answered your question preacher

no one blindly stated that they would unilaterally get rid of all nukes.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#nuclear[/url]

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

[retiredman]

Actually we are about equal with russia. And obamanation did say he was going to reduce our fissile stock piles. And he intends to do that without anyone else reducing theirs. I don't like anything he has said about what he intends to do with the military and I sure don't believe him when he claims he won't gut the military. He'll pull a carter as soon as he's in office.


Obama did not say he would unilaterally reduce our stock piles.

And russia may have warheads, but they do not have the operational delivery systems to get them to us.

But we don't need to discuss this any further. facts mean nothing to you. YOu have made up your mind what you think Obama will do and you will not support him. Hell... you'll probably dance if he is assassinated.

[Yurt]

no one blindly stated that they would unilaterally get rid of all nukes.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#nuclear[/url]

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

sounds to me that if there is a threat, he will maintain a strong deterrent. what that means, who knows. but overall the paragraph seems to indicate his will not reduce unilaterally. can you explain why you think the bold indicates unilateral?

[Yurt]

actually, upon closer review, one could make the argument that his plan for no "new" nuclear weapons is a unilater move to reduce our nuclear arsenal, given the weapons over time will become obsolete/not work.

so i take it back

[retiredman]

sounds to me that if there is a threat, he will maintain a strong deterrent. what that means, who knows. but overall the paragraph seems to indicate his will not reduce unilaterally. can you explain why you think the bold indicates unilateral?


if he will not do so unilaterally, and our enemies will not agree to join us, what reduction will result?

[manu1959]

sounds to me that if there is a threat, he will maintain a strong deterrent. what that means, who knows. but overall the paragraph seems to indicate his will not reduce unilaterally. can you explain why you think the bold indicates unilateral?

what is he going to ask permission of other countries to reduce his own arsenal......

the term unilateral was tossed in to provide weasle room in the argument.....

he has stated he will cut the us arsenal.....that is a pretty unilatteral statement if you ask me.....

[retiredman]

actually, upon closer review, one could make the argument that his plan for no "new" nuclear weapons is a unilater move to reduce our nuclear arsenal, given the weapons over time will become obsolete/not work.

so i take it back

can you explain the process by which a nuclear warhead becomes something that no longer "works"?

[manu1959]

actually, upon closer review, one could make the argument that his plan for no "new" nuclear weapons is a unilater move to reduce our nuclear arsenal, given the weapons over time will become obsolete/not work.

so i take it back

damn dude....kicking you own ass now:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Yurt]

can you explain the process by which a nuclear warhead becomes something that no longer "works"?

are you saying the delivery systems will work forever?


damn dude....kicking you own ass now:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

damnit :finger3: hey i was just goign off of your bold...still..

[Gaffer]

Obama did not say he would unilaterally reduce our stock piles.

And russia may have warheads, but they do not have the operational delivery systems to get them to us.

But we don't need to discuss this any further. facts mean nothing to you. YOu have made up your mind what you think Obama will do and you will not support him. Hell... you'll probably dance if he is assassinated.

The russians have had the operational systems since the 60's. Their missiles are designed to carry up to 18 warheads.

Yes, I made up my mind in 2004 I wouldn't vote for obamanation. I predicted back then he would be running for president. Or he would be hillery's vp. And if he got assassinated I would dance.


:dance:

[retiredman]

The russians have had the operational systems since the 60's. Their missiles are designed to carry up to 18 warheads.

Yes, I made up my mind in 2004 I wouldn't vote for obamanation. I predicted back then he would be running for president. Or he would be hillery's vp. And if he got assassinated I would dance.


:dance:


russia cannot maintain the delivery systems of the former soviet union...and doesn't. they no longer have a large fleet of deployed ssbn's, for example, loaded with MIRV weapons.

what a patriot you are....dancing at the death of the president.

YOU should be shot.

[retiredman]

are you saying the delivery systems will work forever?





do you understand the difference between nuclear warheads and delivery systems?

If so, why did you answer(with a question) my question about the former with an answer(?) concerning the latter?

and I am saying that the existing delivery systems we have for our overwhelming nuclear arsenal are not only WAY better and nearly fully operational than any of our enemies and will remain so if nothing is done to them for the next decade.

[red states rule]

russia cannot maintain the delivery systems of the former soviet union...and doesn't. they no longer have a large fleet of deployed ssbn's, for example, loaded with MIRV weapons.

what a patriot you are....dancing at the death of the president.

YOU should be shot.

Do you want a list of the lib who openly said they wish Pres Bush would be murdered? Hell, movies have been made about his murder, and books written about his assassination

Another example of your selected outrage. You express your outrage over his wishing Obama would be shot, then you scream how he should be shot

[Gaffer]

russia cannot maintain the delivery systems of the former soviet union...and doesn't. they no longer have a large fleet of deployed ssbn's, for example, loaded with MIRV weapons.

what a patriot you are....dancing at the death of the president.

YOU should be shot.

:laugh2: He's not the president, he's a wanna be. And its my right to dance if I want too. It's an expression of speech. When I hold someone in disdain it is pleasing when something bad happens to them.

[Yurt]

when you can produce a quote from Obama where he says he wants to disarm the US military or even to reduce ANY existing weapons systems, you will have won this argument....

not until.

I'll wait.

this argument is over, you lost it and sort of admitted it (you called it irrelevant, but that is not the point, ANY is the point) stop bringing it up in other threads...

don't you think that is the honest thing to do? what are you reasons for continuing to claim that obama did not say he would disarm the military when you said this argument would be won....and you admitted it..

[midcan5]

This is just too damn funny, let's see the last time a submarine attacked the US was when! Too funny. Another example how trivia can keep the simpleminded occupied as the crooks walk away with the loot.

[red states rule]

This is just too damn funny, let's see the last time a submarine attacked the US was when! Too funny. Another example how trivia can keep the simpleminded occupied as the crooks walk away with the loot.

What is funny is your stupidy on defense. Idiots like you are the reason the terrorists are backing Dems in this election

[Yurt]

This is just too damn funny, let's see the last time a submarine attacked the US was when! Too funny. Another example how trivia can keep the simpleminded occupied as the crooks walk away with the loot.

you're right, lets disband the entire military, because when is the last time someone attacked our soil? hey, you believe 9/11 was by our government... so why don't you support disbanding the entire military or do you....

[retiredman]

you're right, lets disband the entire military, because when is the last time someone attacked our soil? hey, you believe 9/11 was by our government... so why don't you support disbanding the entire military or do you....

and you spew flatulent rhetorical bullshit like this and pass it off as debate?

[Yurt]

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
when you can produce a quote from Obama where he says he wants to disarm the US military or even to reduce ANY existing weapons systems, you will have won this argument....

not until.

I'll wait.



this argument is over, you lost it and sort of admitted it (you called it irrelevant, but that is not the point, ANY is the point) stop bringing it up in other threads...

don't you think that is the honest thing to do? what are you reasons for continuing to claim that obama did not say he would disarm the military when you said this argument would be won....and you admitted it..

stop whining you sissy

[retiredman]

I am not whining at all...#107 was and remains flatulent rhetoric.

[red states rule]

I am not whining at all...#107 was and remains flatulent rhetoric.

Hey crybaby, have you ran away fromt his thread?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=15463&page=5


If you are going to keep crying make sure you do not short out the keyboard :laugh2:

Hate to see anything happen to you

[retiredman]

Hey crybaby, have you ran away fromt his thread?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=15463&page=5





answered

[red states rule]

answered

No, you offered a lame lie in a feeble attempt to deny a liberal board limits posts from conservatives

[retiredman]

No, you offered a lame lie in a feeble attempt to deny a liberal board limits posts from conservatives

not so. a board posts limits on people who have less than a certain level of reputation. their rules say nothing about conservative or liberal. I would imagine that there are plenty of people on the internet, from across the political spectrum, that find your spamming one liner repeating schtick to be as onerous as I do.

[Yurt]

not so. a board posts limits on people who have less than a certain level of reputation. their rules say nothing about conservative or liberal. I would imagine that there are plenty of people on the internet, from across the political spectrum, that find your spamming one liner repeating schtick to be as onerous as I do.

this board says nothing about liberal or conservative, yet YOU rant on about how you are in the minority as you are a liberal and how you get attacked and how unfair you are treated by the mods and other posters. don't be stupid.

[retiredman]

this board says nothing about liberal or conservative, yet YOU rant on about how you are in the minority as you are a liberal and how you get attacked and how unfair you are treated by the mods and other posters. don't be stupid.


pointing out that I am a minority is hardly "ranting". I rarely complain to mods.... probably no more than you do. and please don't call me stupid. I am not at all stupid.

[Yurt]

pointing out that I am a minority is hardly "ranting". I rarely complain to mods.... probably no more than you do. and please don't call me stupid. I am not at all stupid.

your probably is wrong, if you want to compare stats and make such complaints public, i am all for it. you whined about complaining to the mods because you did not like your own medicine. i have never reported to you the board owner....

you are then playing stupid, for you know full well your complaints about this board, that is, it is right leaning. RSR's point is made, if a left leaning board requires a certain rep or whatever point to post X or Y, then that is censorship, period.

[retiredman]

your probably is wrong, if you want to compare stats and make such complaints public, i am all for it. you whined about complaining to the mods because you did not like your own medicine. i have never reported to you the board owner....

you are then playing stupid, for you know full well your complaints about this board, that is, it is right leaning. RSR's point is made, if a left leaning board requires a certain rep or whatever point to post X or Y, then that is censorship, period.


you have reported me to moderators....why fail to acknowledge that?

I do not complain about this board being right leaning. I comment upon it. If I had complaints, if I didn't enjoy the challenge that DP presents, I would go elsewhere.

I merely point out that when a horde of conservatives attacks a lone outspoken liberal, it is not proof of the validity of THEIR position or the invalidity his... it merely is proof of the lopsided nature of the forum.

re RSR: it may be a form of censorship, but not censorship explicitly on the basis of political outlook. As I said, I am sure that the internet is full of people from both sides of the aisle that find his unoriginal spamming style to be as annoying as I do.

I would suggest that the cabal of conservative sycophants here are not necessarily indicative of the larger online conservative community so RSR's stature on here is more a result of the overall fawning nature of conservative thought here and less a result of his worth.

[red states rule]

you have reported me to moderators....why fail to acknowledge that?

I do not complain about this board being right leaning. I comment upon it. If I had complaints, if I didn't enjoy the challenge that DP presents, I would go elsewhere.

I merely point out that when a horde of conservatives attacks a lone outspoken liberal, it is not proof of the validity of THEIR position or the invalidity his... it merely is proof of the lopsided nature of the forum.

re RSR: it may be a form of censorship, but not censorship explicitly on the basis of political outlook. As I said, I am sure that the internet is full of people from both sides of the aisle that find his unoriginal spamming style to be as annoying as I do.

I would suggest that the cabal of conservative sycophants here are not necessarily indicative of the larger online conservative community so RSR's stature on here is more a result of the overall fawning nature of conservative thought here and less a result of his worth.


You are the biggest whiner here. You have shed tears over many different topics - while playing your role as the offended lib

As far as your statement that no liberal boards limits the posts of conservatives, well I am still gettting this message when I try to post

vBulletin Message
You must be a member for at least 1 week, have made at least 7 posts, and have a Karma rating greater than 0 to have full membership privileges. Until then you can post 3 replies every 24 hours. Please, click "back" and save your writing on your computer if you would like to post it later.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 pm.
Copyright ©2008, ProgressivesOnline
A vBSkinworks Design


All they do is neg the conservatives and then they can't post

[retiredman]

You are the biggest whiner here. You have shed tears over many different topics - while playing your role as the offended lib

As far as your statement that no liberal boards limits the posts of conservatives, well I am still gettting this message when I try to post

vBulletin Message
You must be a member for at least 1 week, have made at least 7 posts, and have a Karma rating greater than 0 to have full membership privileges. Until then you can post 3 replies every 24 hours. Please, click "back" and save your writing on your computer if you would like to post it later.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 pm.
Copyright ©2008, ProgressivesOnline
A vBSkinworks Design


All they do is neg the conservatives and then they can't post

How does one "shed tears" on the internet, RSR?:lol: I comment on the overwhelming number of conservatives when conservatives attempt to claim that numerical advantages equates to accuracy of thought. I never "whine" about anything.

And you have shown that a board limits a poster for their reputation points. YOu have NOT proven that your reputation is due to you conservative mindset and not, as I suspect, due to your inability to think for yourself and construct arguments longer than three sentences using your own words, and you propensity to regurgitate the same one liner insults ad infinitum.

and I hardly think that they stop you from posting. just excessively posting. :lol:

[Yurt]

manfrommaine;266401]you have reported me to moderators....why fail to acknowledge that?

:lol: you pussy, i never failed to acknowledge it, i have already admitted it and said so on this board. i did so because it bothered you and it was the RULES. haha, i can't believe you, you crack me up.


I do not complain about this board being right leaning. I comment upon it.

i am sure RSR just has comments too right... :lol:



If I had complaints, if I didn't enjoy the challenge that DP presents, I would go elsewhere.

you do have complaints, you said recently that we made you sick or want to throw up or something, so i told you good bye, and you gave the fuck you finger preacher.




re RSR: it may be a form of censorship, but not censorship explicitly on the basis of political outlook. As I said, I am sure that the internet is full of people from both sides of the aisle that find his unoriginal spamming style to be as annoying as I do.

backpeddle

[5stringJeff]

Another thread bites the dust. :(

[retiredman]

you pussy, i never failed to acknowledge it, i have already admitted it and said so on this board. i did so because it bothered you and it was the RULES. haha, i can't believe you, you crack me up.
I agree that you have played by the rules. so have I.

i am sure RSR just has comments too right... :lol:

he has comments and repetitive insults

you do have complaints, you said recently that we made you sick or want to throw up or something, so i told you good bye, and you gave the fuck you finger preacher.
you all do make me ill with your pack mentality.... but I still enjoy the challenge

backpeddle [sic]
no backpedalling at all. RSR claimed that he had been stopped from posting because he was a conservative. All he he can show is that he is limited in post numbers due to a low reputation. He, unfortunately, cannot show that his low reputation is due to his political beliefs and not due to his pathetic spam laden posting style

[Yurt]

=manfrommaine;266430] and you gave the fuck you finger preacher.

do you deny the the finger preacher?



you all do make me ill with your pack mentality.... but I still enjoy the challenge

yet, if rsr claims that about another site, it must be false. if we make you ill, please leave, i do not want to be responsible for another person's sickness. please go. and take our lies with you. pack mentality, you are are liar on this one. so sad.



backpeddle [sic]
no backpedalling at all. RSR claimed that he had been stopped from posting because he was a conservative. All he he can show is that he is limited in post numbers due to a low reputation. He, unfortunately, cannot show that his low reputation is due to his political beliefs and not due to his pathetic spam laden posting style[/QUOTE]


give me a break moron, you think rep points on that site are tied to objectivity? are you stupid? look at this site, very objective, very center. so some members are more right leaning, so what. you had a nice rep before you got sick and cursed everyone, now you enjoy a neg rep. other libs on the board do not.

hmmmm.....it is you and your delusions.

[red states rule]

do you deny the the finger preacher?




yet, if rsr claims that about another site, it must be false. if we make you ill, please leave, i do not want to be responsible for another person's sickness. please go. and take our lies with you. pack mentality, you are are liar on this one. so sad.




give me a break moron, you think rep points on that site are tied to objectivity? are you stupid? look at this site, very objective, very center. so some members are more right leaning, so what. you had a nice rep before you got sick and cursed everyone, now you enjoy a neg rep. other libs on the board do not.

hmmmm.....it is you and your delusions.[/QUOTE]

and if Jim had the same rules as the liberal board, MFM could only post 3 times every 24 hours

What a great thought :laugh2:

[retiredman]

and if Jim had the same rules as the liberal board, MFM could only post 3 times every 24 hours

What a great thought :laugh2:

so....it is a great thought for you to want to stifle my speech here, but a terrible thought when others apparently don't want to read your spam bullshit somewhere else?:lol:

[retiredman]

do you deny the the finger preacher?

deny it? fuck no:fu:

yet, if rsr claims that about another site, it must be false. if we make you ill, please leave, i do not want to be responsible for another person's sickness. please go. and take our lies with you. pack mentality, you are are liar on this one. so sad.

All I have ever said was that RSR's CLAIMS do not make his statements facts. And trust me, counselor...I ain't goin' anywhere. I have communion (my first) and a funeral coming up so I may not be here as often as I would like, but, like I said, I enjoy the challenge and enjoy watching you guys have to resort to gang tackling to try to shut me up!:lol:

give me a break moron, you think rep points on that site are tied to objectivity? are you stupid? look at this site, very objective, very center. so some members are more right leaning, so what. you had a nice rep before you got sick and cursed everyone, now you enjoy a neg rep. other libs on the board do not.
I have no idea how objective the rep points are on that site and neither do you. And actually, I had a positive rep until I started taking the less aggressive path and the pack sensed weakness and inundated me. I was much more confrontational before Mexico and had a positive rep throughout it all. But again.... my reputation points on here are a result of the demographics of this site and nothing else... and I really don't care. I will continue to post here when I have the opportunity. If you don't like it, put my on ignore or YOU go find somewhere else to go... I am sure there are other sites filled with weak minded neocon sycophants... go somewhere else if you don't like me being here. I don't have the time or the patience to find another moron mine like this one. I'm stayin' here.

[Yurt]

deny it? fuck no:fu:



have a happy 4th preacher

[retiredman]

have a happy 4th preacher

I will, shyster. You too!

[Yurt]

I will, shyster. You too!

may you find peace...you had to insult off that post...

[retiredman]

may you find peace...you had to insult off that post...

oh...and your "preacher" comment was meant as a compliment, I am sure!:lol:

trust me, I have found peace and contentment and fulfillment in life, I hope that you may do so at some point as well.

[gabosaurus]

A whole nine pages and no one has pulled the "whale/wife" association card.
I am deeply disappointed in this thread. :p

[manu1959]

A whole nine pages and no one has pulled the "whale/wife" association card.
I am deeply disappointed in this thread. :p

your husband doesn't post here............:poke:

[gabosaurus]

At least I am married. What's your excuse?