Ok, First of all I do not owe you or anyone else for that matter any kind of explanation. Actually it is quite hilarious because you love to argue and yes it does get your "blood boiling". Thankfully I could care less what you think I am or am not which to me is a beautiful thing because I'm not one of those people that walk around worrying what people think of me. Actually you are only "assuming" that was a racist comment and you know what it means to "assume". You can very easily make an ass out of yourself which is what you are doing. I am so far from being a racist. One of my very best friend’s is African American. Again, I owe you no explanation and have so many more things to do than to read your book. Democrats love to throw the “racist” remark out there if you don’t like Obama. That is simply what it comes down to, I do not like him nor do I agree with anything he is about. Wow, I am also very surprised this has gotten to you to the point that you needed to go around and ask everyone if it was a “racist” remark. I’m sure not one of the people that you asked knows me personally and obviously you have no idea who I am.
I think you're alone on this one. Is it lonely over there on your side of this rivalry?
While I’m far from what I would call Pro-Nuclear because I’m not a fan of the destruction and I pray the day never comes again that we use a nuclear weapon but they are absolutely necessary.
There are some out there that think there’s a possibility for a wonderful utopia where tyrants, dangerous dictators, and rogue states would cease to exist if we somehow disposed of our entire nuclear arsenal or at least would suddenly love us if led by example of peace and Complete equality. This is a farce and is not realistic.
This doesn’t mean we should continue development of stronger, more destructive weapons. It also doesn’t mean we need 10k nuclear weapons either. Can we dispose of a majority of these weapons? Sure. Unless we plan on destroying the entire world with a unilateral attack with our entire arsenal what in the hell do we need that many weapons for? I can’t think of a single reason to possess that many nukes.
Let’s use a unsophisticated analogy here. I live in a neighborhood where there is a lot of crime. I’ve been able to avoid being robbed because EVERYONE knows I have an arsenal of weapons waiting for them if they decide to trespass on my property.
Now, because I’ve felt a change of heart I’ve decided to get rid of all of my weapons and want to let everyone know about so I print a flyer and put it in the mailbox of everyone in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Am I more likely to get robbed or less likely? It’s really common sense. There will always be robbers/criminals or more to the point dangerous nations/leaders that threaten freedom.
How would everyone feel about this if a terrorist successfully detonated a nuke here in the US? Let me guess, if we didn’t have any nukes the terrorist wouldn’t be able to get ahold of them? That’s the same flawed premise to goes with gun ownership. Criminals don’t abide by local, federal, or international law. If they want it, they will acquire it; eventually.
We've come a long way baby! From sticks and stones, bows and arrows, swords and daggers, firearms and cannons, to the crowning achievement of man's scientific prowess. The thermonuclear warhead. With the capability to destroy a city the size of Paris, France in less than a second, and kill every living thing near the blast radius in less than a nanosecond. We've come a long way. God should be so proud of all that we've accomplished. He gave us life, and we finally figured out how to stamp it out entirely. War after war, genocide after genocide, all man can contemplate is how to make it bigger, faster, and deadlier. When will we ever learn?
As of December 31, 2005 # of Nuclear Warheads held by the following Countries
Russia-12,987
United States-9,552
France-300
Israel-200
Britain-192
China-176
Pakistan-90
India-75
North Korea-2
These figures are simply an approximation and are not entirely accurate, but are very close. These figures do not take into account smaller weapons such as nuclear artillery shells, depth charges, and anti-ballistic missiles. The frightening thing about these types of weapons is that because of their size they are much more easily stolen than other larger weapons of mass destruction.
Please write to your congressmen and congresswomen, your president, and if possible other nation’s politicians to say “No more!” It is time to take a stand against these horrific tools of destruction and make this world a safer place for generations to come.
I have to agree. It is very insensitive to those who lost loved ones on that fateful day to have a symbol of the religion for which the attacks of 9/11 were based upon sitting smack dab in the middle of the ruins of the World Trade Center. Why not just build an Aryan of the Brotherhood Center in Selma, Alabama or a Catholic Church in the middle of downtown Tehran? Because you just don't do it. It's insensitive to those who live there and have deep seated feelings or objections to certain beliefs. The idea of building a Mosque in the middle of ground zero was just a terrible idea that never should have been considered.
Oh this was just a horrible idea. I can't believe the White House would allow this. I know none of the previous administrations have never been guilty of this type of manipulation. Barack Obama, you bad, bad, bad boy! (and yes, this is sarcasm for those of you who did not pick up on it)
Actually yes it did sound racist cutie, and you didn’t have to point out the fact that President Obama is African-American because we both have functioning pairs of eyes. You would almost have to be blind or ignorant not to know it. Now did I believe you meant it that way. I had hoped not, but without any justification for the comment itself you left yourself wide open to ANY interpretation. In fact I ran this comment by several friends to get their own assessments, and to no surprise they all, not a few or several, but all of them said it sounded racist to them. And before you assume, no, not all of them are democrats. In fact the majority of them range from moderately conservative to very conservative. By the way, neither did I ask them if it sounded racist. That was every single person’s initial reaction without the pretense that I would say something I believed to sound racist.
As to your assumption that you somehow got my “blood boiling”? The only person who seems to be irritated by this is you. I always try never to assume, which is why I allowed you to qualify your remarks, because I had hoped and believed that you had simply made a mistake. Which you admit you did. I’m not upset in the least, but again you should be careful of what you “say” on here. Without qualifying certain remarks like your previous one about the President you open yourself up to these types of situations. If you do not, then that unfortunately is your own fault, and I hope in the future you realize this and use better judgment.
Pandering to your base is just as rampant among Republicans as it is Democrats and has no real bearing on this conversation. So please don’t try distracting from the actual argument by using this trivial political jargon and material.
Now, pay close attention, because I’m about to qualify further remarks by introducing facts that show how ridiculous your arguments are concerning the non-visitation of our President to the flooded areas of Nashville, TN. Not only will I qualify my remarks, but I will also show your hypocrisy concerning this matter as well.
On June 6th through June 7th of 2008 storms across much of the Midwestern states of the U.S. caused horrible flooding and the deaths of almost 30 people. Where was President George W. Bush? He was busy visiting several nations across Europe. It wasn’t until the death toll rose above 20 persons and the damage surveyed by FEMA, that President Bush realized that with a 29% approval rating that he might want to show a little compassion by declaring the entire Midwest a disaster area. Almost two weeks after the initial flooding did he actually show up just long enough for a few photo ops beside the sandbagged banks of the rivers that overflowed, and of course a few photos with then Presidential hopeful John McCain. After only a couple of cities he was back to his normal schedule. Never mind that there were so many others affected by the flooding, like Columbus, Indiana where millions of dollars of damage had been caused and two people died as a result. He had to get back to supporting his party by visiting Jackson, Mississippi on June 27th to help campaign for Senator Wicker, and don’t forget the all important “Ball on the South Lawn” on June 30th supporting Latino baseball.
And what excuses do we have for President Barack Obama not visiting the flooded areas of Nashville, TN? Although he had already declared the city a disaster area so FEMA could help the state and local agencies. Nothing minor. Just a terrorist attempt to blow up a car bomb in New York’s Time Square. Oh, and yeah, that thing in the Gulf of Mexico. You know. The one where 11 people were killed by an explosion aboard an oil drilling platform, the platform itself sank, and 5,000 feet below sea level a gaping hole that is currently spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the sea. Nothing big. I mean what do we have to worry about? It should only kill a few million sea animals and birds, disrupt the entire balance of nature along the gulf seaboard, and affect the financial welfare of those who depend on the fishing industry among Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. No biggie.
If you wish to argue the compassion of President Obama, fine, but you should remember that the man who represented you for the last eight years prior to this administration has performed similar acts. Where was your criticism then? I never heard it. In fact I never criticized him because I realized that with his declaring the Midwest a disaster area the President really did all that he could as President. Making visitations are nothing more than photo ops and really cause nothing more than a distraction anyway. Not to mention the hardships for the Secret Service and their attempt to keep the President safe among areas as unpredictable as those recently devastated like the Midwest. There are many reasons why Presidents do not often visit immediately these types of areas or even at all. It is however highly hypocritical to chastise this President when you never said a word about the prior actions, or lack thereof by the previous President. I believe the only reason why you and others are making such a big deal about this is simply because it is our state in question. Otherwise I doubt you would have made nearly the effort to criticize him if this had happened elsewhere.
And what in God’s name does Kenny Chesney have to do with this? Who cares? I don’t. And you want to talk about publicity, and clamoring for the spotlight? Sounds like Mr. Chesney got his fair share. So kudos to him.
The fact is that what happened in Nashville, TN is horrible, and my prayers and thoughts are with all of them, but the President has done exactly what he should have done. Could he have shown up to show his support? Perhaps, but what would that have physically accomplished for the people of Nashville? Not a lot. I am just appreciative that FEMA has finally learned a lesson and seems to be performing to the best of their ability. That is all the citizens of Nashville should be concerned about, and not whether the President can get a few photo ops in before heading back to the White House.
If the conservative base of this country and their elected officials would spend less time behaving like a bunch of spoiled brats who didn’t get their way and truly show some semblance of bipartisanship, perhaps this country could make greater strides and accomplish something for the better of the people. Instead, most conservatives are usually under the assumption “if you’re not with me, then you’re against me” type attitude, which affords nothing but the usual partisan politics.
“The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose.”
“I guarantee you if he was President during hurricane Katrina he would be there in a heart beat.”
So this statement screams racism? At no point in my comment did I refer to our president’s race or the race of anyone involved in either event (But you did). That is one of the problems with our society, everyone is trigger happy to blurt out “Racist!”
Not that I owe an explanation for my comment but as I know it gets your blood boiling which I greatly enjoy I’ll humor you. It’s no secret that politicians and especially Democrats pander to those in need (their voting base) or should I say exploit those in need which is precisely what our current president would have done if he was in office during Katrina.
There are two reasons I see Mr. Obama had for not visiting the disaster in Nashville. Tennessee is a very conservative state which he didn’t carry in 2008 and will not carry until hell freezes over (Thank God) and there wasn’t thousands and thousands of people begging for help he and the liberal media could exploit and turn into loyal voters. Odd how country music stars had to call those in the liberal media just to get them out there to cover it. Odd how the media hasn’t slammed Obama for not visiting or even doing a flyover of the damage. Our country is so corrupt I’m done playing nice.
Now did I know Louisiana was state carried by republicans, no? I did not, but it doesn’t matter either way.
By the way cuti122403 you know I like you and very much enjoy our conversations, but your previous remark leaves me confused. I do not mean to imply anything by my questions except to garner an answer that hopefully will clarify your earlier comments. Quite frankly I'm hoping your comments accidentally implied something that does not represent your actual beliefs. I know you are intelligent, and that hopefully it was nothing more than a mistake.
My mouse hath betrayed me! While I intended to click on New Orleans voting results I had actually clicked by accident on a different parish. Though New Orleans is in fact the seat of Orleans parish, it did in fact give Obama an overwhelming majority of votes over McCain, the simple fact is that Orleans parish was not the only parish affected by Hurricane Katrina. In fact almost every parish that surrounds Orleans parish which suffered just as greatly voted in favor of McCain in the 2008 Presidential election. So once again my argument does stand. What exactly did you mean to imply?
You know cutie122403 sometimes we reveal more than we should in our expressions. Perhaps you should consider what you mean to say before you actually say it. This typically prevents someone from the old “foot in mouth” disease. Although you may have mistakenly meant to imply that Louisiana is a liberal state by your comment “I guarantee you if he was President during hurricane Katrina he would be there in a heart beat. Unfortunately we are not a liberal state so we are not top priority.” , the fact is that Louisiana is a very RED state and was no where near a supporter for Obama in the 2008 Presidential election. As a matter of fact McCain received almost 60% of the vote against Obama from the state of Louisiana. New Orleans itself did not even hand an overwhelming majority to Obama. Although St. James Parrish handed Obama a victory, it was a victory only by a slim margin of just over 1,500 votes. So how exactly do you believe that had Hurricane Katrina happened during his administration that he’d have been there in a heartbeat? Or perhaps does your remark have a more revealing undertone? Let’s not tiptoe through the tulips. I believe we are all well aware of the fact that our President is African American. Thanks to the many news reports that covered the Katrina disaster we are also fairly well aware that the majority of people living in the greater New Orleans area are predominantly… …you guessed it. African American. In fact, almost 70% of the population of New Orleans is African American. Now I certainly hope that this is not what you meant, but remember that what you do not say sometimes says so much more. Let me be perfectly clear. As you may have assumed that Louisiana was somehow a liberal state I will forgive you for your erroneous assumption, but I sincerely hope that that is indeed the case, and that you did not mean otherwise.
I think you're alone on this one. Is it lonely over there on your side of this rivalry?
There are some out there that think there’s a possibility for a wonderful utopia where tyrants, dangerous dictators, and rogue states would cease to exist if we somehow disposed of our entire nuclear arsenal or at least would suddenly love us if led by example of peace and Complete equality. This is a farce and is not realistic.
This doesn’t mean we should continue development of stronger, more destructive weapons. It also doesn’t mean we need 10k nuclear weapons either. Can we dispose of a majority of these weapons? Sure. Unless we plan on destroying the entire world with a unilateral attack with our entire arsenal what in the hell do we need that many weapons for? I can’t think of a single reason to possess that many nukes.
Let’s use a unsophisticated analogy here. I live in a neighborhood where there is a lot of crime. I’ve been able to avoid being robbed because EVERYONE knows I have an arsenal of weapons waiting for them if they decide to trespass on my property.
Now, because I’ve felt a change of heart I’ve decided to get rid of all of my weapons and want to let everyone know about so I print a flyer and put it in the mailbox of everyone in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Am I more likely to get robbed or less likely? It’s really common sense. There will always be robbers/criminals or more to the point dangerous nations/leaders that threaten freedom.
How would everyone feel about this if a terrorist successfully detonated a nuke here in the US? Let me guess, if we didn’t have any nukes the terrorist wouldn’t be able to get ahold of them? That’s the same flawed premise to goes with gun ownership. Criminals don’t abide by local, federal, or international law. If they want it, they will acquire it; eventually.
As of December 31, 2005 # of Nuclear Warheads held by the following Countries
Russia-12,987
United States-9,552
France-300
Israel-200
Britain-192
China-176
Pakistan-90
India-75
North Korea-2
These figures are simply an approximation and are not entirely accurate, but are very close. These figures do not take into account smaller weapons such as nuclear artillery shells, depth charges, and anti-ballistic missiles. The frightening thing about these types of weapons is that because of their size they are much more easily stolen than other larger weapons of mass destruction.
Please write to your congressmen and congresswomen, your president, and if possible other nation’s politicians to say “No more!” It is time to take a stand against these horrific tools of destruction and make this world a safer place for generations to come.
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/06/nuclear-weapons-world-us-north-korea-russia-iran
As to your assumption that you somehow got my “blood boiling”? The only person who seems to be irritated by this is you. I always try never to assume, which is why I allowed you to qualify your remarks, because I had hoped and believed that you had simply made a mistake. Which you admit you did. I’m not upset in the least, but again you should be careful of what you “say” on here. Without qualifying certain remarks like your previous one about the President you open yourself up to these types of situations. If you do not, then that unfortunately is your own fault, and I hope in the future you realize this and use better judgment.
Pandering to your base is just as rampant among Republicans as it is Democrats and has no real bearing on this conversation. So please don’t try distracting from the actual argument by using this trivial political jargon and material.
Now, pay close attention, because I’m about to qualify further remarks by introducing facts that show how ridiculous your arguments are concerning the non-visitation of our President to the flooded areas of Nashville, TN. Not only will I qualify my remarks, but I will also show your hypocrisy concerning this matter as well.
On June 6th through June 7th of 2008 storms across much of the Midwestern states of the U.S. caused horrible flooding and the deaths of almost 30 people. Where was President George W. Bush? He was busy visiting several nations across Europe. It wasn’t until the death toll rose above 20 persons and the damage surveyed by FEMA, that President Bush realized that with a 29% approval rating that he might want to show a little compassion by declaring the entire Midwest a disaster area. Almost two weeks after the initial flooding did he actually show up just long enough for a few photo ops beside the sandbagged banks of the rivers that overflowed, and of course a few photos with then Presidential hopeful John McCain. After only a couple of cities he was back to his normal schedule. Never mind that there were so many others affected by the flooding, like Columbus, Indiana where millions of dollars of damage had been caused and two people died as a result. He had to get back to supporting his party by visiting Jackson, Mississippi on June 27th to help campaign for Senator Wicker, and don’t forget the all important “Ball on the South Lawn” on June 30th supporting Latino baseball.
And what excuses do we have for President Barack Obama not visiting the flooded areas of Nashville, TN? Although he had already declared the city a disaster area so FEMA could help the state and local agencies. Nothing minor. Just a terrorist attempt to blow up a car bomb in New York’s Time Square. Oh, and yeah, that thing in the Gulf of Mexico. You know. The one where 11 people were killed by an explosion aboard an oil drilling platform, the platform itself sank, and 5,000 feet below sea level a gaping hole that is currently spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the sea. Nothing big. I mean what do we have to worry about? It should only kill a few million sea animals and birds, disrupt the entire balance of nature along the gulf seaboard, and affect the financial welfare of those who depend on the fishing industry among Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. No biggie.
If you wish to argue the compassion of President Obama, fine, but you should remember that the man who represented you for the last eight years prior to this administration has performed similar acts. Where was your criticism then? I never heard it. In fact I never criticized him because I realized that with his declaring the Midwest a disaster area the President really did all that he could as President. Making visitations are nothing more than photo ops and really cause nothing more than a distraction anyway. Not to mention the hardships for the Secret Service and their attempt to keep the President safe among areas as unpredictable as those recently devastated like the Midwest. There are many reasons why Presidents do not often visit immediately these types of areas or even at all. It is however highly hypocritical to chastise this President when you never said a word about the prior actions, or lack thereof by the previous President. I believe the only reason why you and others are making such a big deal about this is simply because it is our state in question. Otherwise I doubt you would have made nearly the effort to criticize him if this had happened elsewhere.
And what in God’s name does Kenny Chesney have to do with this? Who cares? I don’t. And you want to talk about publicity, and clamoring for the spotlight? Sounds like Mr. Chesney got his fair share. So kudos to him.
The fact is that what happened in Nashville, TN is horrible, and my prayers and thoughts are with all of them, but the President has done exactly what he should have done. Could he have shown up to show his support? Perhaps, but what would that have physically accomplished for the people of Nashville? Not a lot. I am just appreciative that FEMA has finally learned a lesson and seems to be performing to the best of their ability. That is all the citizens of Nashville should be concerned about, and not whether the President can get a few photo ops in before heading back to the White House.
If the conservative base of this country and their elected officials would spend less time behaving like a bunch of spoiled brats who didn’t get their way and truly show some semblance of bipartisanship, perhaps this country could make greater strides and accomplish something for the better of the people. Instead, most conservatives are usually under the assumption “if you’re not with me, then you’re against me” type attitude, which affords nothing but the usual partisan politics.
“The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose.”
President Barack H. Obama
Sources:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/teeball/2008/06302008/index.html
http://cottonmouthblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/george-w-bush-and-roger-wicker-in.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/19/national/main4193737.shtml
http://www.sprol.com/2008/08/columbus-indiana-2008-flood-of-the-century/
http://tiny.cc/mzi08
So this statement screams racism? At no point in my comment did I refer to our president’s race or the race of anyone involved in either event (But you did). That is one of the problems with our society, everyone is trigger happy to blurt out “Racist!”
Not that I owe an explanation for my comment but as I know it gets your blood boiling which I greatly enjoy I’ll humor you. It’s no secret that politicians and especially Democrats pander to those in need (their voting base) or should I say exploit those in need which is precisely what our current president would have done if he was in office during Katrina.
There are two reasons I see Mr. Obama had for not visiting the disaster in Nashville. Tennessee is a very conservative state which he didn’t carry in 2008 and will not carry until hell freezes over (Thank God) and there wasn’t thousands and thousands of people begging for help he and the liberal media could exploit and turn into loyal voters. Odd how country music stars had to call those in the liberal media just to get them out there to cover it. Odd how the media hasn’t slammed Obama for not visiting or even doing a flyover of the damage. Our country is so corrupt I’m done playing nice.
Now did I know Louisiana was state carried by republicans, no? I did not, but it doesn’t matter either way.
http://blog.cmt.com/2010-05-06/kenny-chesney-calls-cnn-about-flood-damage/
Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
Source: http://neworleans.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm