The Obama Years- A GOP love story

[JoeRedskin]

Obama: 'I hear you' - CNN.com

During a roughly 90-minute press conference Wednesday, Obama gave no sign that he'd accept major revisions to his signature health care law, change his mind on bypassing Congress on immigration or consent to Republican demands on energy and the environment.

Indeed, the President didn't do much to suggest that his White House would work differently after Republicans won at least 52 seats in the Senate and their biggest majority in the House since World War II.

... and, yet, the Republicans are the obstructionists.

[Chico23231]

Russia plans long-range bomber flights near U.S. shores - CNN.com

white house *crickets*

[kct1975]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Russia plans long-range bomber flights near U.S. shores - CNN.com

white house *crickets*

Heard about that last night...sux!

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Russia plans long-range bomber flights near U.S. shores - CNN.com

white house *crickets*

What would you like a preemptive nuclear strike? Should they attack Russian bombers in International airspace?

The US did something very similar to this throughout the 60's. It was called Operation Chrome Dome and it only ended after the 5th B-52 crashed while holding H-bombs.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

What would you like a preemptive nuclear strike? Should they attack Russian bombers in International airspace?

The US did something very similar to this throughout the 60's. It was called Operation Chrome Dome and it only ended after the 5th B-52 crashed while holding H-bombs.

Sure, we press the limits on occasion also. As the article indicates, as long as they stay out of our internationally recognized air space of ~14 miles off-shore, there really isn't anything we can (or should) "do" about it.

Of course, during the 60's when Chrome Dome was flying, we were at the height of the cold-war. Is it Russia's intention to recreate that era's mistrust?

How about a declaration from the Prez along these lines:

"Russia has indicated that they will be again flying offensive military aircraft within the US's claimed 200 mile air-space. It is unfortunate that Mr. Putin continues to use and escalate military confrontation as a foreign policy tactic. While technically legal under international law, Mr. Putin's actions blatantly disregard the US's claimed territorial airspace and are just the latest in a series of foreign policy actions by Mr. Putin which threaten the US's desire for peaceful relations with the Russian people.

Mr. Putin's actions unnecessarily harken back to a time of suspicion and confrontation epitomized by the 60's cold war era. It is not my countrymen's desire to return to those dark times, but, if forced upon us, we will face Mr. Putin with the same resolve with which we faced the decrepit and tyrannical Soviet oligarchs of that bygone era.

So that there is no misunderstandings, Mr. Putin should know that the US deems these flights as what they are clearly meant to be - a demonstration of offensive military capability against the US mainland. Accordingly, and with full respect to international law, any Russian military aircraft entering into US international airspace, without prior permission, to do so will be deemed to be taking offensive action against the US soil and will be immediately, and with no further warning, shot down.

Because of the offensive nature of weapons being used by Mr. Putin for these flights, Mr. Putin's choice to make these flights in close proximity to American citizens and industry, and Mr. Putin's past willingness to ignore and / or respect internationally recognized borders, claims of malfunctions or navigational errors by Russian military aircraft can not be considered as trustworthy and military planes making such claims will be shot down immediately upon entering the US's internationally recognized airspace. Accordingly, Mr. Putin, and Mr. Putin alone, is accountable for the risk he imposes on Russian military personnel.

It is unfortunate in this time of trouble when cool heads and peaceful processes are needed that Mr. Putin, instead, adopts the militarily confrontational methods of a bygone era. While striving always for peaceful resolution of differences, the US cannot and will not put the security of its citizens at risk and trust their safety to the petty sabre rattling of a tin-plated despot. We can only hope that Mr. Putin recognizes the error of this tactic and chooses to respect US territorial claims by making no flights within the 200 mile airspace claimed by US."

or just a simple "Okay, but we're going to shoot first and ask questions later if they get to close."

Never going to happen and Putin knows it. It's like he is just pissing on Obama and daring Obama to say anything about it. Obama really is Putin's biatch.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sure, we press the limits on occasion also. As the article indicates, as long as they stay out of our internationally recognized air space of ~14 miles off-shore, there really isn't anything we can (or should) "do" about it.

Of course, during the 60's when Chrome Dome was flying, we were at the height of the cold-war. Is it Russia's intention to recreate that era's mistrust?

Yes. That is what most on the right don't get. Not necessarily Russia, but Putin. A response like what you describe is just what Putin wants. He wants to try to provoke the US to overreact so he can overreact and so on. Putin wants to try to come off looking tough. This plays well with the his hardliners (think Reagan talking up the "Big Russian Bear"). There is no real threat, but he hopes to create one(think Reagan talking up the "Big Russian Bear").

This tacit doesn't play well with all groups within Russian namely the young and the rich, who are hurt by economic sanctions and would not benefit from poor relations with the US and Europe.

If Obama came out and made stupid, wild, and poorly thought out threats,(think Reagan talking up the "Big Russian Bear"), then it would it give Putin exactly what he wants. Not only that, but there is almost 0 support in this country for escalating tensions with Russia.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

What would you like a preemptive nuclear strike? Should they attack Russian bombers in International airspace?

The US did something very similar to this throughout the 60's. It was called Operation Chrome Dome and it only ended after the 5th B-52 crashed while holding H-bombs.

Yes a preemptive nuclear strike.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yes a preemptive nuclear strike.

The Skins season has totally stressed me out....I could totally get behind a preemptive strike........

[NC_Skins]

Even Fox News is outraged at Boehner and Netanyahu's plan to undermine Obama - Vox


So Fox is supporting Obama and going against Israel at the same time? Dafuq is happening here?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Even Fox News is outraged at Boehner and Netanyahu's plan to undermine Obama - Vox


So Fox is supporting Obama and going against Israel at the same time? Dafuq is happening here?

2 Fox personalities have spoken against Boehner arranging for a foreign diplomat (netanyahu) to address Congress without the white houses consent or even knowledge.

The 2 Fox personalities are not supporting Obama but are supporting the POTUS office as the only branch that should be setting up foreign diplomats to talk about foreign policy .. and Israel has always been considered a bi-partisan platform.

There are certain things that you just cannot do. Allowing House republicans to mess with foreign policy and show a divided front is a big no-no. especially when it will literally get nothing accomplished. Obama will veto any sanctions against Iran.

We arent the only fractured House. Apparently the Mossad doesnt want sanctions passed either, despite what Netanyahu thinks. I was reading the hazzera (israel news site) and a lot of israelis arent happy w netanyahu for this latest disrespectful stunt.

Obama said he wasnt going to meet w Netanyahu.

Netanyahu has now pushed his "visit" back a month to when the AIPAC meets and after the Iran sanction vote in the House.

Boehner and Netanyahu accomplished nothing except chill US and Israel relations. Why the fuck should Obama give 2 shits about Netanyahu after this? why should Obama give 2 shits after Netanyahu decided to "lecture" the president on israel-palestinian history years ago? Why should any US president give 2 shits when Israel refuses to stop building on disputed territories from pres Bush time to now?

and I am pro-israel.

I honestly have no clue what the Repubs are doing right now.

they want to amend the US constitution to ban same sex marriage? these supposed "tea party" strict constructionists want to amend the US constitution?

In Alabama, the republicans are telling clerks they will be arrested for a year if they follow the law and give out marriage licenses to same sex couples. They are also mulling a freeze on all marriage licenses -same or hetro.

The last time southern republicans did some thing like this, they closed down schools for everyone (white and black) instead of integrating schools.

just bizarre. devote religious republicans are a backwards bunch.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

just bizarre. devote religious republicans are a backwards bunch.

As long as the Republican party keeps pandering to the far far right, they'll never win another Presidential election again. They have to abandon those dickwads and move closer to the middle and moderates to get their votes.

Hell, when you look at the political spectrum, most democrats are usually to the right of the line and pretty much what conservatives in the 80s used to be like.

[over the mountain]

i must be confused.

Did i just hear on NPR that republicans initially blocked a bill that would allow a fund to be created to compensate victims of human trafficking bc they did not want abortions to be included in services for victims of human trafficking that this fund could pay?

i assume i heard that wrong.

i assume republicans en masse wouldnt do such a thing in the name of fighting abortion.

[That Guy]

well, some of them are trying to say gay marriage should be illegal because it'll cause 900,000 abortions. that seems pretty screw lose to me.

[over the mountain]

Anti-human-trafficking bill gets caught up in abortion politics in Senate - The Washington Post

sadly i was not wrong.

a bill to set up a fund to help victims of sex trafficking get housing and medical attention was held up bc .... REPUBLICANS DID NOT WANT ABORTION TO BE COVERED UNDER THE SERVICES?

are you effing kidding me?

the fund would be paid by penalties paid by people guilty of sex trafficking.

im normally not a dem v republican guy and am registered libertarian but ... eff republicans.

[over the mountain]

U.S. Shoots Itself In the Foot By Accidentally Arming ISIS

funny - 2 years ago certain republicans were blasting Obama for not immediately sending weapons to the syrian rebels 2 years ago bc Obama and others feared it would get into the wrong hands.