Or try to sell her crack or use the word "mother" in an obscene combination. I hear American negros do such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Printable View
Or try to sell her crack or use the word "mother" in an obscene combination. I hear American negros do such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Aye 'Moms' always shouting Mutha...... this and Mutha...... that all day long. :egypt:
I remember this from a year or two back. Hilarious.Quote:
And, despite what you might think, those restaurants are exactly like restaurants run by white people, with tables and chairs, and food, and everything:
So it was actually, technically, a mistake. But Her Royalness has the grace to not only ignore it, but to play along. Good on 'er.Quote:
Buckingham Palace was very relaxed today about the incident, and attitudes there have changed significantly since the days of Mr Keating and his lese-majesty.
The secret, real reason why you never touch the Queen. She's poisonous.
EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. Please host pictures yourself on a site like photobucket. BG
No more Chia Obama
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...lgreens_040309
Yeah I loved that :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Obama prepares to call for an end to nuclear weapons
Bad and impractical idea that I don't understand.Quote:
During his visit to Prague, the President met with several key Czech leaders. The meeting ended quickly, the men inside stricken with blindness. An Obama aide said about the meeting, "Obama raised his arms above his head, and shouted unto the Lord, our God, 'There shalt be no more nuclear weaponry!' and thus it was so. For God on High is almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth."
No more Nuclear weapons = Bad idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
I don't follow.
No nuclear weapons = no threat of reciprocal destruction in war.
However, corollary to that is
No nuclear weapons = no terrorist organization using them on nation states.
Good, we might actually start looking for real diplomacy that isn't at the barrel of a gun then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Where would the nuclear weapons be stored or destroyed? What happens to all that uranium and other radioactive materials?
The idea that we can, peacefully, remove all nuclear weapons and prevent them from being built again to me is the height of optimism. While Obama could remove most major nuclear weaponry, to me it is highly suspect that every nation will move in this direction and it is also highly suspect that terrorists or other guerrilla groups won't figure out the basic method of nuclear weapon creation.
I think it's similar to the Kellogg-Briand Pact that "outlawed war", which sounds nice, but how can we take back something that has already occurred?
On the contrary, that is what forced us to keep using diplomacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Maniac is quite correct, CA. For the first time in human history, every person had reason to avoid war at all possible costs. Because, for the first time in human history, that war could be the end of humanity.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that we shouldn't be drawing nuclear arsenals. When the US can, by itself, blow the entire world to bits without even needing "help" from the rest of the world on the task, there's something not quite right. Nobody should logically need more than a dozen nuclear bombs, let alone hundreds or thousands.
Does anybody else think that this "universal disarmament" talk (which ain't gonna happen, as Obama well knows) is a ploy aimed in the direction of a certain country that really, really wants to join the nuclear club? (Cough, cough, Iran, cough, cough.)
I wonder how Obama will handle the "Axis of Evil". It's too early to tell.
Meanwhile, the increasing number of American gun crime is getting freaky.
I don't know about you, but I think there have been quite a few wars since WWII...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Getting rid of Nukes now isn't feasible.
Aimed at Iran with what goal? It'd be very foolish to think that he could shame the Iranian leaders into stopping nuclear research with his disarmament talks. But then again, maybe you're right- amateurish foreign policy moves like that seem to be a hallmark of the Obama administration thus far. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Name them, then tell me the defining characteristic of every single one of them that separates them from the continual blood orgies that characterized Europe for 500 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
There's no difference at all... so what have Nukes done to stop them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
You see no difference in a war between France and Germany and a war between the United States and Vietnam?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
People are still dying for moronic causes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
EDIT: Not to say there is no difference, just that war has not been stopped by the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The question isn't whether wars occurred, but whether other wars were avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
War has been stopped between those who have them and the capability to deliver them to a target. Especially for a small nation, nuclear capability is necessary. Look what happened to Iraq when Saddam tried to go toe to toe with the US, or the various examples of military hilarity involving Israel and Arab nations. Conventional forces are getting increasingly powerful, complex, and exotic. Personally, I can't blame Iran for wanting a nuclear weapon. They know they can't stand up in a conventional war. I just don't understand how they can possibly perceive their foreign policy is effective in accomplishing it, assuming that they want it for defensive purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
*And yes, generally the causes are fairly moronic, however that doesn't stop them from happening now does it?*
Obama wants SCOTUS to overturn a pretty fundamental right of defendants in our legal system; to have the police stop questioning them when they request a lawyer.
A real shame. It should be obvious that a suspect interrogated for hours, perhaps poor and ignorant of the law, is not on equal terms with a professional interrogator.Quote:
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
The administration's action _ and several others _ have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign.
Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.
The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
...
The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.
"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
CR
Don't worry you uranium loving yanks, Obama isn'T really downgrading your nuclear capabilities, he is actually going to modernise them:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Yay for "Change!":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Linkage man, LINKAGE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Biden:
Open mouth, insert foot.
CRQuote:
WASHINGTON (CBS) ―
Vice President Joe Biden may not be a doctor, but he dispensed curious medical advice on the morning network news shows Thursday, advising Americans to avoid "confined places," such as airplanes, malls and classrooms. And while he did not mention them specifically, his admonition apparently also included subways, confined spaces used by tens of thousands of New Yorkers and tourists daily.
Later, though, the White House issued a statement saying Biden meant people should avoid confined spaces if they are ill.
Meanwhile in New York City, Biden's comments seemed to sound the bell of alarm. For tens of thousands of New Yorkers and tourists the subway system is the only possible form of transportation.
Here it is. From the AP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Also from the AP is an astonishingly blunt fack check of Obama's 100 day speech:
FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
Additionally, the article took issue with Obama's claims that spending more on preventative medicine would yield huge long-term savings...Quote:
"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
----Quote:
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
It's good to hear from Biden again, I was wondering where he's been. I'm sure Nepolitano was glad that she got to correct someone else's statements for a change. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit