Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-13-2010, 10:48 AM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
5,142 posts, read 13,068,103 times
Reputation: 2515

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatteress View Post
A little over one year in office and an inherited mess - he hasn't had enough time to really impact change. As with most other presidents, it takes years before we can truly gain a sense of the legacy they left behind.
A++++.
I agree!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2010, 10:55 AM
 
533 posts, read 316,817 times
Reputation: 88
By far, ONE, of the many good things Obama has done for this country is working on nuclear arms control, and the agreement with Russia last week, and the 47 nation meeting held in the U.S. Unless, of course, you're one of those people who love the idea of "loose nukes" in the hands of terrorist organizations.

"Last week, he signed the first major agreement with the Russians since 2002, which reduces the number of nuclear warheads and long-range missiles."

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Why controlling nukes is good politics « - Blogs from CNN.com

"Reagan adopted a more conciliatory posture toward the Soviets in 1984. He delivered a widely publicized speech arguing that the Soviets and the U.S. could achieve peace. Then between 1985 and 1987, he defied the right-wing of the Republican Party -- Howard Phillips called him a "useful idiot" for Kremlin propaganda -- and entered into negotiations with the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev that culminated in the INF Treaty in 1987.
When national security is on the table, Democrats tend to get nervous politically, particularly if they support a position that can be characterized as too dovish. But when it comes to nuclear weapons, President Obama is on a path that is politically sustainable."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/1...ex.html?hpt=T2

Last edited by HummerLuvr; 04-13-2010 at 11:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:05 AM
 
3,219 posts, read 6,561,165 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by HummerLuvr View Post
By far, ONE, of the many good things Obama has done for this country is working on nuclear arms control, and the agreement with Russia last week, and the 47 nation meeting held in the U.S. Unless, of course, you're one of those people who love the idea of "loose nukes" in the hands of terrorist organizations.

"Last week, he signed the first major agreement with the Russians since 2002, which reduces the number of nuclear warheads and long-range missiles."

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Why controlling nukes is good politics « - Blogs from CNN.com
And that's a good thing?

Not IMO!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:09 AM
 
533 posts, read 316,817 times
Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy View Post
And that's a good thing?

Not IMO!
So you like the idea of "loose nukes" out there so in time the terrorist organizations can obtain one and hit us with it?

You do realize that the biggest threat is that a terrorist organization will obtain a nuclear weapon and USE IT, don't you? If the world can come together in order to protect us all from loose nukes in the hands of terrorists, that would be a really good thing. The public generally supports the control of nuclear weapons as opposed to war mongering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:12 AM
 
3,219 posts, read 6,561,165 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by HummerLuvr View Post
So you like the idea of "loose nukes" out there so in time the terrorist organizations can obtain one and hit us with it?

You do realize that the biggest threat is that a terrorist organization will obtain a nuclear weapon and USE IT, don't you? If the world can come together in order to protect us all from loose nukes in the hands of terrorists, that would be a really good thing. The public generally supports the control of nuclear weapons as opposed to war mongering.
They do hmmmm.......???

Kindly show me MULTIPLE polls (including the main ones doing them) that shows this support and I'll hush-up and apologize.

Speaking of health: this also contributes to bad health to those who don't like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:37 AM
 
533 posts, read 316,817 times
Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy View Post
They do hmmmm.......???

Kindly show me MULTIPLE polls (including the main ones doing them) that shows this support and I'll hush-up and apologize.

Speaking of health: this also contributes to bad health to those who don't like this.
I'm not speaking of health or health care. I'm speaking about controlling all the nukes in the world which are not very secure. As for polls, how about you just do a little reading about the history of the nuclear arms race in order to figure out that most sane people do in fact support a ban on nuclear arms as opposed to supporting the idea of a war USING nuclear arms.

You didn't answer. Do you like the idea of "loose nukes" all over the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in the world?

If you want to wait for polls to tell you what to think, I believe that's your problem, not mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:42 AM
 
1,503 posts, read 1,150,056 times
Reputation: 321
Ended 8 years of Republicans fleecing America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:56 AM
 
3,219 posts, read 6,561,165 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by HummerLuvr View Post
I'm not speaking of health or health care. I'm speaking about controlling all the nukes in the world which are not very secure. As for polls, how about you just do a little reading about the history of the nuclear arms race in order to figure out that most sane people do in fact support a ban on nuclear arms as opposed to supporting the idea of a war USING nuclear arms.

You didn't answer. Do you like the idea of "loose nukes" all over the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in the world?

If you want to wait for polls to tell you what to think, I believe that's your problem, not mine.
Only at the very end I was speaking of health.

If I were to make an assertion on a forum as a fact I'd provide documented proof of such.

If it's your opinion that's another thing.

Do you really think that Russia is actually going to reduce arms when they can get out of this so-called agreement on a whim??

IMO: They'll opt out using another excuse so to keep and or increase their arms or want to "take over" another country in which the USA doesn't approve of - something like these examples anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:58 AM
 
3,219 posts, read 6,561,165 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
Ended 8 years of Republicans fleecing America.
Don't worry the Dems are doing a great job to do one(s) better the prior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,112 posts, read 19,323,347 times
Reputation: 5270
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy View Post
They do hmmmm.......???

Kindly show me MULTIPLE polls (including the main ones doing them) that shows this support and I'll hush-up and apologize.

Speaking of health: this also contributes to bad health to those who don't like this.
CNN/OR

"As you may know, President Obama and the president of Russia recently signed a treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons of each country, but the treaty will not take effect until the U.S. Senate votes in favor of it. Do you think the U.S. Senate should or should not vote in favor of that treaty?

Should 70%
Should Not 28%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top