Russian President: Obama a 'thinker... unlike other people'

[Lou Dog]

Number one I'm steve doocy. Lol.

delusional


Main Entry: de?lu?sion
Pronunciation: \di-ˈl?-zhən, dē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
Date: 15th century
1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
? de?lu?sion?al \-ˈl?zh-nəl, -ˈl?-zhə-nəl\ adjective
? de?lu?sion?ary \-zhə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
synonyms delusion, illusion, hallucination, mirage mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind <delusions of persecution>. illusion implies a false ascribing of reality based on what one sees or imagines <an illusion of safety>. hallucination implies impressions that are the product of disordered senses, as because of mental illness or drugs <suffered from terrifying hallucinations>. mirage in its extended sense applies to an illusory vision, dream, hope, or aim <claimed a balanced budget is a mirage>.

 

[steve doocy]

^^If you have proof otherwise show it. But of course that is not the subject of the thread and has nothing to do with it. This does

That is your response? You have a military education and Easter Bunnies are the best you can come up with? Don't you have an opinion based on something other than the bottle of Jack you have hidden under the desk?

It is to our benefit to reduce the nuclear weapons around the world based on our superior strength and to the detriment of Russians. It is an equalizer for them and remember we had that first too. Hopefully you have something adult to contribute.

Got brains?

But hey,that's just my opinion.

 

[truthBtold]

Number one I'm steve doocy. Lol. You can't even get that right. It's called backing up what you say with facts. What do you have against facts? What do you have against being proven wrong?

I love facts, why don't you show proof that you are who you say you are, because I don't want to talk to some delusional pretender.

 

[truthBtold]

Doofy, you still there?

 

[steve doocy]

ROR!!!!!! I've been here posting with you back and forth for over a month. Why now? Facts be hard? ROR!!!! What happened? Why right now military man?

That's what I've thought since I read your first post in March. Good.

Again Russia is in a weaker position without those nukes, we are in a stronger theoretically as outside of nukes our prowess is far superior Kilmeade! But hey that's my opinion.

 

[steve doocy]

Still there?

 

[bLAzE]

doofy, lmao!!
sorry im not keepin up wit this thread but i did see truth's doofy post, lmao

 

[grape ape]

lol ^^^ i agree troof is doofy

I feel if no one else has nukes yeah. Absolutely. As long as we maintain our relationships with our allies and don't lame them up like Dubya absolutely.

I noticed the entirety of your argument against mine had to di with your feelings of strong emotion about myself and Grape Ape. What can I say other than... that's just not the subject man. Can't you offer up anything worth commenting on? I read in the other post on nukes you claim a military record. So why is it that all you have to offer is regarding an emotional response about two members of this website? It would seem you should actually have somewhat of an educated response. Well where is it?

Being as we completely outspend everyone else by leaps and bounds if there were no nukes we would assuredly have hardly any worries.

Here are some pictures which may help you to understand -

Facts can help reveal the real truth to be told.

That is your response? You have a military education and Easter Bunnies are the best you can come up with? Don't you have an opinion based on something other than the bottle of Jack you have hidden under the desk?

It is to our benefit to reduce the nuclear weapons around the world based on our superior strength and to the detriment of Russians. It is an equalizer for them and remember we had that first too. Hopefully you have something adult to contribute.

i agreei agree

 

[TheTruthIs]

Number one I'm steve doocy. Lol. You can't even get that right. It's called backing up what you say with facts. What do you have against facts? What do you have against being proven wrong?

delusional


Main Entry: de?lu?sion
Pronunciation: \di-ˈl?-zhən, dē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
Date: 15th century
1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
— de?lu?sion?al \-ˈl?zh-nəl, -ˈl?-zhə-nəl\ adjective
— de?lu?sion?ary \-zhə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
synonyms delusion, illusion, hallucination, mirage mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind <delusions of persecution>. illusion implies a false ascribing of reality based on what one sees or imagines <an illusion of safety>. hallucination implies impressions that are the product of disordered senses, as because of mental illness or drugs <suffered from terrifying hallucinations>. mirage in its extended sense applies to an illusory vision, dream, hope, or aim <claimed a balanced budget is a mirage>.

I love facts, why don't you show proof that you are who you say you are, because I don't want to talk to some delusional pretender.

I understand Elvis impersonators, but what kind of a weirdo would impersonate Steve Doocy?
DOOOOOOOOOOOFY!

 

[steve doocy]

First I said

Really?

" 'Nuclear weapons are for Russian people now much more important than decades ago,' Arbatov said. "They are more important than during the Cold War times as a pillar of national security."

Moscow just published its own defense doctrine, and it reserves the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons if the very existence of Russia is threatened. This reveals one of the great paradoxes of nuclear weapons, Perkovich says.

"In a world where you take away everybody else's nuclear weapons and also the U.S. nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have this great advantage in conventional military capability," he said.

Russian leaders look at the U.S. advantage in advanced military technology, and they see nuclear weapons as the great equalizer.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125604693&ft=1&f=1001
"

Right... there's a smart one. sharp and pays attention too.

But hey, that's just my opinion... Oh wait no it's the experts too.

Then you said

cut and paste- great, now try reading it purple ostrich.

Russia got what they wanted from BO, not from Bush- as far as nukes go.

And then you want me to prove I'm Steve Doocey

I love facts, why don't you show proof that you are who you say you are, because I don't want to talk to some delusional pretender.

So if I don't give you proof you no longer respond to me? ... Cool. I'd rather be able to respond to posts without you responding to me. Awesome. You're outta here. (Let's see how long he is able to resist) And don't forget the subject is not me. Lol.

 

[steve doocy]

lol ^^^ i agree troof is doofy





i agreei agree

Yup ha panicks and suddnely changes the subject when you have him over a barrel. No military service there.

Back to the subject.

Published on Friday, March 26, 2010 by The Progressive
US-Russia Nuclear Deal a Positive Step

by Amitabh Pal

All of us disarmament advocates should be happy about the just-agreed reductions in the arsenals of the world's two biggest nuclear powers. But it's not reason enough to break out the champagne.

The U.S.-Russia agreement is certainly a big deal. Within seven years, both sides will slash their stockpiles of strategic warheads to roughly 1,500, an almost 50 percent reduction. The number of launchers would be cut by half. Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association (a person I truly respect) terms it "the first truly post-Cold-War nuclear arms reduction treaty."

But there are still a few glitches. A large one is a recurring nightmare from the 1980s: Star Wars, a.k.a. the missile defense program.

Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl (two people I have no respect for) have threatened to block ratification in the Senate if the agreement contains any binding language at all on missile defense, as the preamble reportedly has some wording dealing with the subject. Since sixty-seven votes are needed in the Senate (just like for any other treaty), this could be a roadblock.

The Russians, on the other hand, are not too happy, even with President Obama's downscaled version of the Reagan/Bush missile defense fantasy. And Obama took the unhelpful stance of refusing to offer any concrete assurances, annoying them and almost derailing the negotiations, as had happened in the past.

"Russia had wanted to cut the nuclear bomb arsenals further under Putin, which would have enabled us to call all the parties to the table to negotiate for their abolition, but no agreement was reached-with the U.S. insisting on having its so-called missile defense systems and plans to dominate space," says Alice Slater of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

The Obama Administration's recent discussion with Romania and Bulgaria about the possibility of these two countries hosting elements of the system has further unnerved the Russians.

"If the U.S. unilaterally deploys considerable amounts of missile defense, then Russia has the right to withdraw from the agreement because the spirit of the preamble has been violated," threatens Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired general and arms control honcho.

Obama will need considerable skills at navigating these shoals.

And then there are other issues.

The United States and Russia still have 1,000 nuclear weapons each on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment's notice. An accident or a miscalculation on either side could result in an unimaginable cataclysm. I have seen no indication that the new agreement addresses this problem.

And then there's the larger question for those of us committed to a nuclear-free world: Does this treaty move us along that path? Richard Burt of Global Zero (as in zero nuclear weapons) thinks so. The United States and Russia "took a major step toward achieving their goal of global zero," he says.

I wish I could be that optimistic. Matthew Rojansky of the Partnership for a Secure America calculates that there'll still be more than 10,000 U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons left after the agreement takes effect. In spite of the symbolism of the treaty being signed next month in Prague, where Obama made his pledge of ridding the world of nuclear arms, I will believe in a nuclear-free world when I see it.

Still, the agreement is a major step forward. If not the time for a toast, it is at least an occasion to let out a cheer.
? 2010 The Progressive

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/26-10

The argument was with fewer nukes we are in a better position as militarily we have a much larger and more powerful capability. They don't call it the great equalizer for nothing. There will always be rogue states and a need for deterrent there. But between US and Russia. We are in the better position.

 

[TheTruthIs]

I understand Elvis impersonators, but what kind of a weirdo would impersonate Steve Doocy?
DOOOOOOOOOOOFY!

 

[steve doocy]

Yup ha panicks and suddnely changes the subject when you have him over a barrel. No military service there.

Back to the subject.

Published on Friday, March 26, 2010 by The Progressive
US-Russia Nuclear Deal a Positive Step

by Amitabh Pal

All of us disarmament advocates should be happy about the just-agreed reductions in the arsenals of the world's two biggest nuclear powers. But it's not reason enough to break out the champagne.

The U.S.-Russia agreement is certainly a big deal. Within seven years, both sides will slash their stockpiles of strategic warheads to roughly 1,500, an almost 50 percent reduction. The number of launchers would be cut by half. Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association (a person I truly respect) terms it "the first truly post-Cold-War nuclear arms reduction treaty."

But there are still a few glitches. A large one is a recurring nightmare from the 1980s: Star Wars, a.k.a. the missile defense program.

Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl (two people I have no respect for) have threatened to block ratification in the Senate if the agreement contains any binding language at all on missile defense, as the preamble reportedly has some wording dealing with the subject. Since sixty-seven votes are needed in the Senate (just like for any other treaty), this could be a roadblock.

The Russians, on the other hand, are not too happy, even with President Obama's downscaled version of the Reagan/Bush missile defense fantasy. And Obama took the unhelpful stance of refusing to offer any concrete assurances, annoying them and almost derailing the negotiations, as had happened in the past.

"Russia had wanted to cut the nuclear bomb arsenals further under Putin, which would have enabled us to call all the parties to the table to negotiate for their abolition, but no agreement was reached-with the U.S. insisting on having its so-called missile defense systems and plans to dominate space," says Alice Slater of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

The Obama Administration's recent discussion with Romania and Bulgaria about the possibility of these two countries hosting elements of the system has further unnerved the Russians.

"If the U.S. unilaterally deploys considerable amounts of missile defense, then Russia has the right to withdraw from the agreement because the spirit of the preamble has been violated," threatens Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired general and arms control honcho.

Obama will need considerable skills at navigating these shoals.

And then there are other issues.

The United States and Russia still have 1,000 nuclear weapons each on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment's notice. An accident or a miscalculation on either side could result in an unimaginable cataclysm. I have seen no indication that the new agreement addresses this problem.

And then there's the larger question for those of us committed to a nuclear-free world: Does this treaty move us along that path? Richard Burt of Global Zero (as in zero nuclear weapons) thinks so. The United States and Russia "took a major step toward achieving their goal of global zero," he says.

I wish I could be that optimistic. Matthew Rojansky of the Partnership for a Secure America calculates that there'll still be more than 10,000 U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons left after the agreement takes effect. In spite of the symbolism of the treaty being signed next month in Prague, where Obama made his pledge of ridding the world of nuclear arms, I will believe in a nuclear-free world when I see it.

Still, the agreement is a major step forward. If not the time for a toast, it is at least an occasion to let out a cheer.
? 2010 The Progressive

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/26-10

The argument was with fewer nukes we are in a better position as militarily we have a much larger and more powerful capability. They don't call it the great equalizer for nothing. There will always be rogue states and a need for deterrent there. But between US and Russia. We are in the better position.

Just look at the facts to be told.

 

[Uncle Earl]

Hey Doofus post that there one again about the world with no nukes whut were that calt again Fantasy World er whut?

 

[steve doocy]

That was a hypothetical meant to illustrate who has a more powerful military between the US and Russia sans the nukes. But, even though this is another troll of yours didn't you say you weren't talking to me?

Either way I stand by it and the numbers prove it. I still have yet to hear anything but childish remarks from you. Look at the chart. $711 billion is what we spend. $70 billion is what they spend. Go ahead.

 

[Uncle Earl]

A hypo what? a hypopotamus? What is you talkin about is them one of them creatures in your fantasy world?

What's next you wanna talk about if Jennyfur Lopez didn't have a big ole pumpkin butt or if'n Shirley Mae Cooper didn't have them big ole titties- whut sense do that make? Jenny got a big ole butt, Shirley Mae gots sum big ole titties and the world has nukes.
Pull yer head outta yer ass Doofy!

 

[steve doocy]

That was a hypothetical meant to illustrate who has a more powerful military between the US and Russia sans the nukes. But, even though this is another troll of yours didn't you say you weren't talking to me?

Either way I stand by it and the numbers prove it. I still have yet to hear anything but childish remarks from you. Look at the chart. $711 billion is what we spend. $70 billion is what they spend. Go ahead.

Whenever you're ready Troof let's talk the issues.

 

[TheTruthIs]

711 billion dollars and our troops still didn't have the essentials/basics like proper body armor.

That's the problem with a democrat like you- it takes more than money- it takes money management.

Fucking Doofy, you copy and paste a fucking article and then you get on a soap box hollering like you know something. You don't know shit, go talk about your hypothetical bullshit with your half white half latino che guvera shirt wearing college kid friends.

 

[TheTruthIs]

A hypo what? a hypopotamus? What is you talkin about is them one of them creatures in your fantasy world?

What's next you wanna talk about if Jennyfur Lopez didn't have a big ole pumpkin butt or if'n Shirley Mae Cooper didn't have them big ole titties- whut sense do that make? Jenny got a big ole butt, Shirley Mae gots sum big ole titties and the world has nukes.
Pull yer head outta yer ass Doofy!

^ that is comedy gold!

 

[TheTruthIs]

Number one I'm steve doocy. Lol. You can't even get that right. It's called backing up what you say with facts.

[wavey] Doofy