It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In 52 Secs Why Barack Obama Cannot Win A General Election

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I honestly can't believe I just heard Obama say what he did on this video:



Did he just say his plan is to get rid of all U.S. nuclear weapons by negotiating with Russia?

And that he is going to cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems? Well isn't every missile defense system unproven until it's developed?

And he's going to "slow our development of future combat systems"??? How is that in the best interest of the U.S.?

WTH???

No wonder he's endorsed by every enemy of the U.S. No wonder Clinton is ready to spit every time she talks about how naive and inexperienced Obama is. And no wonder McCain and the Republicans are looking pretty happy and confident about November.

This Obama video is the only commercial McCain will need to run. They should just add, "I'm John McCain and I Approve This Message" to the end of the video.

This is a conspiracy on the highest order. The ONLY person who could have lost to the Republicans this year was Obama, and now the strings have been pulled so that he is going to be THE candidate.

WTH?

No wonder the powers that be made sure Michigan and Florida were taken out of play, and that Obama would pick up more delegates from Texas even though Clinton got over 200,000 more votes.

When are people going to wake up and see what's going on!?

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30/5/2008 by Mirthful Me]




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Sorry about the all caps.

I cut and pasted the headline and didn't realize that it was all caps.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


banning nukes will have the same effect as banning guns...

the criminals will have them

the rest of us won't.

There's a world i dont want to live in.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
We have been doing that for decades.... Remember when Reagan offered Gorbechev a deal that would have eliminated both nation's nuclear weapons?

Or are you too young?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



I remember Regan. I also remember him calling for both nations to reduce their arms, not eliminate them all together.

A global ban on any weaon takes it out of the hands of the enforcers, not the criminals that need enforcing.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Look up his (I believe) 86 meeting in Iceland. W



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Ok, i stand somewhat corrected.

But saying that Regan wanted it makes no difference to me. Regan was a politician, good for him.

My issue is out there and ready for debate.

Do you disagree that, even a gloab ban in place, terrorists and criminals would still have the possibility of obtaining a nuclear weapon (even if its a dirty bomb) ???



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Bans are absolutely worthless.

There is always as secret Nuclear program for every public one.

True Nuclear weopons reduction will never happen .. this is the grave danger we face. To much greed and money in trying to push hidden agendas.

The only winning move is not to play, but how long do you think the world won't play without using Nukes? A sore loser definitely would be the first.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
We have been doing that for decades.... Remember when Reagan offered Gorbechev a deal that would have eliminated both nation's nuclear weapons?

Or are you too young?


What Reagan did or didn't do is totally irrelevant in 2008 now, isn't it?

The point being that in 2008 Obama is pandering to the anti-war wing of the party by going on an on about how it's his goal to completely eliminate nuclear weapons, etc.

But we all know he isn't going to be talking about this AT ALL in the general election. There's no chance of it. Zero.

Which means the above video is really just another example of Obama the politician who's like every other politician. He's telling people what they want to hear, which ironically is the EXACT message Bush told people in 2000.

"I'm not a Washington insider so you can trust me to change how things are done and reach across the aisle. I'm a Uniter."



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


He never said get rid of them all. He said stop making new ones. And Reagan did the same exact thing.

Do you think he would say this if his campaign didn't know people wanted to hear it?

Stop twisting the words and look.

AAC



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


I'm sure that some people do want to hear what he has to say. In particular, the left will eat it up. In the end, that's the target audience here, liberal Democrats who hold a great deal of power in the primaries.

On the other hand, such statements are potentially problematic when attempting to draw moderates and the conservative-leaning Democrats that abound in 'flyover territory' in the middle of the country.

The statement about slowing development of future combat systems is the one that is particularly disturbing, IMO, and its one that will not play well in the south, midwest or western states during the general election.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by vor78]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

He never said get rid of them all. He said stop making new ones. And Reagan did the same exact thing.

Do you think he would say this if his campaign didn't know people wanted to hear it?

Stop twisting the words and look.

AAC



No, at about :33 he says his goal is a world without nuclear weapons, and then goes on to describe how he plans to achieve that goal.

While such a goal may be noble and get high marks if written on assignments at Harvard or Princeton, it's terribly naive to believe in the REAL world that this policy wouldn't lead to disastrous results.

That's why most people over 40 are going to hear this and cringe (unless they're college professors).



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Reagan did seek to limit nuclear proliferation, hence his famous quote, "Trust, but verify," or words to that effect.

Reagan also beefed up our military and developed weapons systems that even while the media were claiming they couldn't work, proved their worth in battle in the Gulf War.

Obama sounds incredibly naive, in my judgement, and given the reality of the world at this time, probably couldn't make good on those promises without crippling US defense, a condition that our enemies would exploit ASAP.



[edit on 2008/5/31 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Perhaps you're right. However, are we all to resign to the fact that the world can't be governed peacefully, with the common man's interests taken to heart equally as the man that governs?

AAC



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
, a condition that our enemies would exploit ASAP.


Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) recently reminded us of this and here is a quote from him -

"A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn."



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


If we replace "people" with "empire" we'd remember that no empire has survived, so that quote/point's moot.

AAC



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
[

If we replace "people" with "empire" we'd remember that no empire has survived, so that quote/point's moot.



With that logic, this whole election is moot. Might as well turn the keys over to the barbarians and tell them to lock up on their way out.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
who cares what he says ? Clinton is going ro be the nominee. Obama will NEVER get the nomination.

howard Dean has said over and over the most electable person will get it. To me that means the one losing=clinton.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


That would be a catastrophic mistake for the Dems, IMO. If they do that, it would alienate the black community which, election cycle after election cycle, votes 90%+ for Democrats. It'll destroy turnout among that group for the '08 election and in fact might very well cause irreparable damage to their ability to draw that base in the future. They've waited a LONG time to have a nationally competitive candidate and if the DNC does anything remotely close to stealing it out from under him, it'll be the biggest disaster imaginable for the party.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


this country loves war, the government loves war, big business loves war, the U.S. spends more money on defense spending then all other countries combined. to think this country is a country of peace is laughable. people here that are anti-war are considered un-patriotic. this country is pro-war and will continue, no matter who becomes president. we will continue to have enemies, real or imagined, and it will be drumed into every americans mind, over and over, just as it always has. can anyone imagine having a "department of peace" with a cabinet position in the white house? are you nuts? all you people that are so frightened of the U.S. trying to work toward a more peaceful world don't have a thing to worry about. we will continue to bomb countries, mobilize our armies, and threaten anyone that does not agree to live by our rules. sooo......relax, don't get the blood pressure up, have a cocktail, because we will never "give in" to peace.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join