posted April 15, 2010 12:01 PM         

So who are those who would not like the fact America is a dominant military superpower?

Let's start with O'Bomber himself and follow up with his political guru, Frank Marshall Davis...member of the Communist Party USA; his self described Marxist professors whom he sought out in college, his A-Hole buddy the Communist domestic terrorist bomber, Bill Ayers, his Marxist so called minister Reverrrrend Wright, his buds over at Democratic Socialists of America, his buds at the Communist Party USA, the Communists he appointed to high level positions in the O'Bomber administration, his Socialist comrades in Congress who attempted to cut off funding for US military forces in the field...during a war, George Soros who funded O'Bomber's campaign and whose number 1 goal in life...he says...is to diminish the power and influence of the United States in world affairs along with about 10% of Americans who are "accidential Americans" who despise the United States and believe the United States IS the evil in the world.

These are O'Bomber's "core supporters" who enthuastically support O'Bomber's self described mission to "Transform America". These are the despisers of America and everything which America stands for. These are the knotheads who believe America was conceived in inequity and born in sin.

It's only in moments like this that Americans get a true glimpse of the real O'Bomber and what he stands for. Other such moments occurred when O'Bomber took his "apology tour" around the world apologizing for America.

posted April 15, 2010 12:32 PM         

and where is the quote where george soros says his number one aim is to diminish the united states?

i don't know where you get your information about being conceived in inequity and born in sin. i think it HAS been suggested that the "equality" that is the cornerstone of the constitution needs updating from time to time.

posted April 15, 2010 01:04 PM         

You're in the right...or rather the "left" phew with O'Bomber.

I'm tired of doing your homework for you katatonic. Do your own research whenever you doubt what I put forth as fact.

I posted that Soros comment from his book..along with another in which Soros says he sometimes feels like God...on this forum at least 4 years ago. I'm not going back to find it but you can feel free. The comments were taken straight out of one of the books he wrote...or had written for him.

posted April 15, 2010 03:16 PM         

talk softly carry a big stick. doesn't mean you have to use it on children who spit on you...

as for me being lazy if i made a statement like that with no source i fancy you would want to know where i got it. and when i have used personal examples which cannot be referenced you have called me a liar. as usual, your way or the highway, right? well i always liked highways.

posted April 15, 2010 05:40 PM         

Sorry, O'Bomber slipped up and said what he really meant. For once, O'Bomber wasn't lying.

posted April 15, 2010 07:06 PM         

The "Whether we like it or not" is not at all necessary to the sentence. It merely produced a snapshot of O'Bomber's ideologically mindset.

posted April 15, 2010 11:18 PM         

Your analysis is asinine acoustic.

Military commanders in the field know the troops would rather be doing something else instead of getting shot at. So would the military commander.

Using your analogy, O'Bomber would prefer the US not be a dominant military superpower.

posted April 16, 2010 10:24 AM         

Mother to father, "We are responsible for teaching our kids good morals whether we like it or not."

Boss talking to subordinants that must work overtime, "We have to get this finished tonight, whether we like it or not."

posted April 16, 2010 02:13 PM         

Otherwise, his sentence makes no sense at all.

He could have and should have simply said...The United States is a dominant military superpower. As such, We, (the United States), have duties, obligations and responsibilities around the world.

posted April 16, 2010 02:19 PM         

Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it. America’s military may be one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, liberating countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept authoritarian powers like Russia and China in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s interests for our country to remain a dominant military superpower, but under our great country’s new leadership that dominance seems to be slipping away. President Obama has ended production of the F-22, the most advanced fighter jet this country has ever built. He’s gutted our missile defense program by eliminating shield resources in strategic places including Alaska. And he’s ended the program to build a new generation of nuclear weapons that would have ensured the reliability of our nuclear deterrent well into the future. All this is in the context of the country’s unsustainable debt that could further limit defense spending. As one defense expert recently explained:

The president is looking to eliminate the last vestiges of the Reagan-era buildup. Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “ended” (not “won”), the arms control treaties signed, and defense budgets held at historic lows while social entitlements and debt service rise to near-European levels, the era of American superpower will have passed.

posted April 16, 2010 02:50 PM         

"WOT a LOAD of BOLLOCKS!"

posted April 16, 2010 05:01 PM         

Several Military programs aimed at helping families during deployments have had their funding cut. A well known program that was heavily funded to help Military spouses receive grants in order to move into an occupation that travels with us or to begin attending college was put on hold due to too many spouses needing the funding and the funds mysteriously drying up.

Seasoned Soldiers are being "gently pushed" to consider retirement after 20 years to help reduce the costs associated with higher Sr. Enlisted and Officer Soldiers.

Clinton instituted cuts that severely and adversely affected the Military and the ability to go to war without major stress on Soldiers / Families due to extended deployments and short dwell times. Only now, because of the reduction of forces in Iraq have the Soldiers been able to have more than 12 months of dwell time before a deployment. The regiment I worked for returned from a 15 month deployment after only having been home for 12 months (at least 4 of which are spent out in the field training). Bush and Congress did increase the number of Military personnel but that goal has been put on hold with the new administration.

posted April 16, 2010 05:38 PM         

all due respect pid, but a large portion of the "people" don't want perpetual police duty of the world. in fact bringing em home from iraq was part of what he was voted in to do. i don't think most people suspected that coming home from iraq would be hand in glove with expanding into other areas.

posted April 16, 2010 06:13 PM         

The intent in Iraq was the surge and then the draw down and the same will happen with Afghanistan. We train the Iraqi and Afghani Soldiers / police and then move on. Unfortunately, Afghanistan was left to NATO forces for too long and they were more intent on having tea parties in their tents than keeping an eye on the borders and Taliban.

Had the US Military not been cut to shreds under Clinton, there would have been more forces to rotate through Iraq thus allowing the Soldiers to have more dwell time for rest, families and training.

posted April 16, 2010 06:23 PM         

An O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinker calling me gullible? An O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinker who laps up every drop and begs for more?

That's priceless.

First time I heard O'Bomber make his asinine "Whether we like it or not" statement, I was watching the 6 pm news on a local station.

My first impulse was to reach through the TV screen to slap the crap out of this little Marxist turkey.

He's totally unfit for the office he holds and proves it every time he opens his mouth.

Yeah Pid, I remember Kommander Korruption reducing the US military almost 40% and congress going along...at a time when the US was being attacked both at home in the US and abroad.

Then came the Iraq war and those same morons were screeching and screaming, howling and shrieking....to end the Iraq war...because we didn't have enough military personnel.

One thing is constant about leftists. They all despise the US military...even those who become Commander in Chief.

posted April 16, 2010 07:17 PM         

There is no metaphorical Kool-Aid for me. I'm not here pushing an agenda. You are. Don't forget it.

quote:

---

Yeah Pid, I remember Kommander Korruption reducing the US military almost 40% and congress going along...at a time when the US was being attacked both at home in the US and abroad.

---

And do you remember the defense cuts Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney called for? Every sensible Defense Secretary has wanted to make sensible cuts to the military.

posted April 16, 2010 07:50 PM         

Think back acoustic to all the times you jumped in without considering any of the implications of what you were saying.

posted April 16, 2010 07:53 PM         

So you're saying that you think it was "thoughtful" of yourself to post a quote you clearly didn't understand with an ill-conceived rant that seems to suggest that you believe and are angry about what you're saying, and tie it together with a broad smile that clearly contradicts your sentiment? You think that's thoughtful and bright, do you?

I think it's rather moronic.

If your wide smiley is suggestive that you actually know you're not posting anything of any real merit, then one can only ascertain that you're actively promoting a sort of propaganda, which may seem smart to you, except that anyone can decipher quite easily that the quote isn't intended at all in the manner you and Sarah Palin have suggested. Further, aligning yourself with a known idiot's opinion only serves to solidify your inability to gets things right or understand things.