Obama's Plan For American Security

Is this his current position, or is it his position from 1999?

Do you know for sure?

My guess is no, and merely are just smearing him any way you can figure out how.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Obama's Plan For American Security.....is to ban ALL handguns from it's citizens.

How many threads are you going to post this lie on?

You are really getting desperate these days.

Cycloptichorn

I posted where it's not a lie on the first thread.

Here's a little lesson in logic for you.
P1. Obama supports banning ALL semi-automatic weapons.
P2. 99.9999% of handguns are semi-automatic (effectively ALL).
/ Therefore Obama supports banning (effectively) ALL handguns.

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Obama's Plan For American Security.....is to ban ALL handguns from it's citizens.

How many threads are you going to post this lie on?

You are really getting desperate these days.

Cycloptichorn

I posted where it's not a lie on the first thread.

Here's a little lesson in logic for you.
P1. Obama supports banning ALL semi-automatic weapons.
P2. 99.9999% of handguns are semi-automatic (effectively ALL).
/ Therefore Obama supports banning (effectively) ALL handguns.

Errr.. no. There are several studies and stastical reports out from various sources (sales, registrations, NCIC sales approvals, etc..) and your "P2" is off the mark. The numbers have been fairly consistant over the last 10 years and when looking at handgun sales the range is 68%-75% for semi-automatics. A large percentage, but not quite your 99.9999%.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is this his current position, or is it his position from 1999?

Do you know for sure?

My guess is no, and merely are just smearing him any way you can figure out how.

I'm sorry, is he an entirely different person in 2008?

Has he denounced this position that he took sometime in the last 9-10 years?

Don't I hear you critize Clinton for things that she did/said over 9-10 years ago?

Oh, damn it, I forgot.......Obama can't be held accountable for things he's said or done......he's the Messiah.

I wonder if the sane people in this country will give Obama the same 'pass' that you seem to always do.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:

You need to be able to explain why it should give one pause

Cycloptichorn- Much as you would like to, I will not be put on the defensive. I don't need to explain anything. Accept it or reject the clip as you wish. And that is all I will say about it!

Suit yourself but you now have no credibility.

But the rub, Phoenix, is that you see the piece as a negative while I, and other Obama supporters, see it as a positive. You or anyone who seriously thinks that his desire, as president, is to weaken our military and our defense to a point where we cannot defend ourselves, is deluding themselves and searching desperately, DESPERATELY, for reasons, ANY reason, even something as lame as this, to use against him.

eoe wrote:

But the rub, Phoenix, is that you see the piece as a negative while I, and other Obama supporters, see it as a positive. You or anyone who seriously thinks that his desire, as president, is to weaken our military and our defense to a point where we cannot defend ourselves, is deluding themselves and searching desperately, DESPERATELY, for reasons, ANY reason, even something as lame as this, to use against him.

Hey, one man's meat is another man's poison. You don't
seem to think that weakening our defense positions as serious. I do. There is nothing more to be said. History will either prove me out, or show that I am talking through my hat. I just don't want to be around when the axe falls.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

eoe wrote:

But the rub, Phoenix, is that you see the piece as a negative while I, and other Obama supporters, see it as a positive. You or anyone who seriously thinks that his desire, as president, is to weaken our military and our defense to a point where we cannot defend ourselves, is deluding themselves and searching desperately, DESPERATELY, for reasons, ANY reason, even something as lame as this, to use against him.

Hey, one man's meat is another man's poison. You don't
seem to think that weakening our defense positions as serious. I do. There is nothing more to be said. History will either prove me out, or show that I am talking through my hat. I just don't want to be around when the axe falls.

But he's not "weakening" our defense positions. He's talking in terms of trimming the excess fat. And surely you know about the excess fat? We've got the arsenal to blow up the world 100 times over. Do we need the ability to blow it up 150 times over? 200 times over? 300?

I for one would rather see hungry children get at least one decent meal a day. I'd rather see our veterans taken care of with dignity and respect. I'd rather see the infrastructures of our decaying cities built up. I'd rather see art programs and music programs back in the schools.
Forgive me, these are just off the top of my head...

eoe wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

eoe wrote:

But the rub, Phoenix, is that you see the piece as a negative while I, and other Obama supporters, see it as a positive. You or anyone who seriously thinks that his desire, as president, is to weaken our military and our defense to a point where we cannot defend ourselves, is deluding themselves and searching desperately, DESPERATELY, for reasons, ANY reason, even something as lame as this, to use against him.

Hey, one man's meat is another man's poison. You don't
seem to think that weakening our defense positions as serious. I do. There is nothing more to be said. History will either prove me out, or show that I am talking through my hat. I just don't want to be around when the axe falls.

But he's not "weakening" our defense positions. He's talking in terms of trimming the excess fat. And surely you know about the excess fat? We've got the arsenal to blow up the world 100 times over. Do we need the ability to blow it up 150 times over? 200 times over? 300?

I for one would rather see hungry children get at least one decent meal a day. I'd rather see our veterans taken care of with dignity and respect. I'd rather see the infrastructures of our decaying cities built up. I'd rather see art programs and music programs back in the schools.
Forgive me, these are just off the top of my head...

He is advocating weakening our defense positions, immediate pullout in Iraq, selling out American interests to 3rd world nations (He will speak to anyone at anytime and apologize for everything). How you equate that to transferring costs to other areas is, well...naive.

woiyo wrote:

eoe wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

eoe wrote:

But the rub, Phoenix, is that you see the piece as a negative while I, and other Obama supporters, see it as a positive. You or anyone who seriously thinks that his desire, as president, is to weaken our military and our defense to a point where we cannot defend ourselves, is deluding themselves and searching desperately, DESPERATELY, for reasons, ANY reason, even something as lame as this, to use against him.

Hey, one man's meat is another man's poison. You don't
seem to think that weakening our defense positions as serious. I do. There is nothing more to be said. History will either prove me out, or show that I am talking through my hat. I just don't want to be around when the axe falls.

But he's not "weakening" our defense positions. He's talking in terms of trimming the excess fat. And surely you know about the excess fat? We've got the arsenal to blow up the world 100 times over. Do we need the ability to blow it up 150 times over? 200 times over? 300?

I for one would rather see hungry children get at least one decent meal a day. I'd rather see our veterans taken care of with dignity and respect. I'd rather see the infrastructures of our decaying cities built up. I'd rather see art programs and music programs back in the schools.
Forgive me, these are just off the top of my head...

He is advocating weakening our defense positions, immediate pullout in Iraq, selling out American interests to 3rd world nations (He will speak to anyone at anytime and apologize for everything). How you equate that to transferring costs to other areas is, well...naive.

He's not advocating weakening our defensive position in the slightest; OR immediately pulling out of Iraq. You're just making **** up.

And yes, he will speak to foreign leaders. Why not? The whole 'ooh, it gives them prestige' argument is BS. These guys already have a lock on their own country, what the hell is more prestige going to do for them? Put them even MORE in charge? Doesn't make sense.

You can't call other people Naive when you are making stuff up, man.

Cycloptichorn

From his web site.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq's Leaders to Reconcile

Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

(Editorial - He classifies anyone making 75K or more rich)

woiyo wrote:
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

Sounds like a good plan to me. Everybody just STOP the production. Let's sit down and talk about it. I'll bring the sweet potato pie. What can I put you down for?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

eoe wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

eoe wrote:

But the rub, Phoenix, is that you see the piece as a negative while I, and other Obama supporters, see it as a positive. You or anyone who seriously thinks that his desire, as president, is to weaken our military and our defense to a point where we cannot defend ourselves, is deluding themselves and searching desperately, DESPERATELY, for reasons, ANY reason, even something as lame as this, to use against him.

Hey, one man's meat is another man's poison. You don't
seem to think that weakening our defense positions as serious. I do. There is nothing more to be said. History will either prove me out, or show that I am talking through my hat. I just don't want to be around when the axe falls.

But he's not "weakening" our defense positions. He's talking in terms of trimming the excess fat. And surely you know about the excess fat? We've got the arsenal to blow up the world 100 times over. Do we need the ability to blow it up 150 times over? 200 times over? 300?

I for one would rather see hungry children get at least one decent meal a day. I'd rather see our veterans taken care of with dignity and respect. I'd rather see the infrastructures of our decaying cities built up. I'd rather see art programs and music programs back in the schools.
Forgive me, these are just off the top of my head...

He is advocating weakening our defense positions, immediate pullout in Iraq, selling out American interests to 3rd world nations (He will speak to anyone at anytime and apologize for everything). How you equate that to transferring costs to other areas is, well...naive.

He's not advocating weakening our defensive position in the slightest; OR immediately pulling out of Iraq. You're just making **** up.

And yes, he will speak to foreign leaders. Why not? The whole 'ooh, it gives them prestige' argument is BS. These guys already have a lock on their own country, what the hell is more prestige going to do for them? Put them even MORE in charge? Doesn't make sense.

You can't call other people Naive when you are making stuff up, man.

Cycloptichorn

From his web site.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq's Leaders to Reconcile


Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

(Editorial - How will he do this?)

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

(Editorial - He classifies anyone making 75K or more rich)

woiyo- But of course. Obama's main constituency are those who think 75 grand is RICH. It is all a matter of numbers. People who don't have, love to get something from people whom they think do, even if those "rich" people are struggling to pay mortgages, and put their kids through college.