Bill Clinton to campaign for Obama - Help or Hurt?

[bd77]

Originally Posted by Raider

From what I've seen of Chris Rock, he comes off looking like a racist.

What would happen if a white comedian did this;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8jqfbLI1LLc&feature=related

That's Chris Rock's big thing to talk about, Race. It gets old after awhile.

Originally Posted by jasdon11

And could you please explain just what Ronald Reagan did towards the fall of the Soviet Union? There are a lot of Russians who might think they did more....

This is from Wikipedia:

Cold War

See also: Cold War and Cold War (1979-1985)

Reagan escalated the Cold War, accelerating a reversal from the policy of détente which began in 1979 following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.[156] Reagan ordered a massive buildup of the United States Military[88] and implemented new policies towards the Soviet Union: reviving the B-1 bomber program that had been canceled by the Carter administration, and producing the MX "Peacekeeper" missile.[157] In response to Soviet deployment of the SS-20, Reagan oversaw NATO's deployment of the Pershing II missile in West Germany.[158]
Reagan, the first American president ever to address the British Parliament, predicts Marxism-Leninism will be left on the ash-heap of history.
Reagan, the first American president ever to address the British Parliament, predicts Marxism-Leninism will be left on the ash-heap of history.[159]

One of Reagan's more controversial proposals was the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a defense project[160] that would have used ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles.[161] Reagan believed that this defense shield could make nuclear war impossible,[160][162] but disbelief that the technology could ever work led opponents to dub SDI "Star Wars" and argue that the technological objective was unattainable.[160] The Soviets became concerned about the possible effects SDI would have,[163] and leader Yuri Andropov said it would put "the entire world in jeopardy".[164] For those reasons, David Gergen, former aide to President Reagan, believes that in retrospect, SDI hastened the end of the Cold War.[142]

Reagan, as well as Britain's prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, denounced the Soviet Union in ideological terms.[165] In a famous address on June 8, 1982 to the British Parliament, Reagan called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" that would be consigned to the "ash heap of history". On March 3, 1983, he predicted that communism would collapse, stating, "communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written."[42] After Soviet fighters downed Korean Air Lines Flight 007 on September 1, 1983, Reagan labeled the act a "massacre" and declared that the Soviets had turned "against the world and the moral precepts which guide human relations among people everywhere."[166] The Reagan administration responded to the incident by suspending all Soviet passenger air service to the United States, and dropped several agreements being negotiated with the Soviets, hurting them financially.[166]

Reagan's foreign policies were criticized variously as aggressive, imperialistic, and known to some as "warmongering."[163] These events occurred before a reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev, rose to power in the Soviet Union in 1985. To confront the USSR's serious economic problems, Gorbachev implemented new policies for openness and reform: glasnost and perestroika.

Reagan displayed humor throughout his presidency,[167] including one notable joke regarding the Cold War. As a sound check prior to his weekly radio address in August 1984, Reagan made the following gaffe as a way to test the microphone: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."[168]

End of the Cold War

See also: Cold War (1985-1991)


By the early 1980s, the USSR had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States. Previously, the U.S. had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed.[169] After President Reagan's military buildup, the Soviet Union did not further dramatically build up its military;[170] the enormous military expenses, in combination with collectivized agriculture and inefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy.[171] At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production,[172] which resulted in a three times drop of oil prices in 1985; oil was the main source of Soviet export revenues.[171] These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a stagnant state during Gorbachev's tenure.[171]

Ronald Reagan recognized the change in the direction of the Soviet leadership with Gorbachev, and shifted to diplomacy, with a view to encourage the Soviet Leader to pursue substantial arms agreements. Gorbachev agreed to meet Reagan in four summit conferences around the world: the first in Geneva, Switzerland, the second in Reykjavík, Iceland, the third held in Washington, D.C., along with the fourth summit in Moscow, Russia.[173] Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to allow for more democracy and free speech, this would lead to reform and the end of Communism.[174]

Speaking at the Berlin Wall, on June 12, 1987, Reagan challenged Gorbachev to go further:
“ General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ”

Prior to Gorbachev visiting Washington, D.C. for the third summit in 1987, the Soviet Leader announced his intention to pursue significant arms agreements.[175] The timing of the announcement led Western diplomats to state that Gorbachev was offering major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe;[175] however, Gorbachev denied ever doing so. He and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.[176]

When Reagan visited Moscow for the fourth summit in 1988, he was viewed as a celebrity by Russians. A journalist asked the president if he still considered the Soviet Union the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era."[177] At Gorbachev’s request, Reagan gave a speech on free markets at the Moscow State University.[178]

In his autobiography An American Life, Reagan expressed his optimism about the new direction that they charted, his warm feelings for Gorbachev, and his concern for Gorbachev's safety because he pushed reforms so hard: "I was concerned for his safety," Reagan wrote. "I've still worried about him. How hard and fast can he push reforms without risking his life?"[179] The Berlin Wall was torn down starting in 1989 and two years later the Soviet Union collapsed.

I hope this answers your question.

[Area52]

Let's see now.
There's "Jeremiah Wrong"
Then there's "Cut your ballz off Jackson"
Don't forget the man with the famous line, " I never had secs with that woman"
And many more to come.
With fine, upstanding and non-prejudicial supporters like those, along with his unconvincing rhetoric, the only change Obama (or whatever is name is)
will have to worry about in November will be his going home after his concession speech.

To sum it up in the words of Chris Rock: Who is this "Mother ****er" and what kind of "Mother ****ing" joke is the Democratic party trying to pull here?

[Raider]

Originally Posted by biggedon

none of the almost half white audience didn't have a problem with buying tickets to the concert though.

and they/we know it's just comedy and jokes... kinda like the BUSH administration

having fun playing with your race cards Raider?

Not really, The Democrats and others on this Forum do plenty of that already. Almost every time Obama's name comes up, the Race card find it's way into the discussion. Maybe you can give us your take on why that is.

Rather than pollute my thread with sour political jokes, I would appreciate if you would post them in the appropriate section of the forum.

http://www.dnforum.com/f78/

[fab]

Originally Posted by biggedon

another snippet from Chris Rock on John McCain:

"who wants to vote for a "Mother ****ing" war hero that got caught....I'd rather vote for the "Mother ****er" war hero that got away!"


excuse the french, but it had the crowd roaring with laughter

The French and war are oxymorons
Chris Rock is only a moron

[Devil Dog]

Originally Posted by biggedon

another snippet from Chris Rock on John McCain:

"who wants to vote for a "Mother ****ing" war hero that got caught....I'd rather vote for the "Mother ****er" war hero that got away!"


excuse the french, but it had the crowd roaring with laughter

Classic.

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by Raider

What looks the same to me is your ignorance on yet another subject.

So are you saying that those two lines don't have the same meaning? On second thought, don't bother answering 'cos you'll only avoid the point again.

Originally Posted by bd77

That's Chris Rock's big thing to talk about, Race. It gets old after awhile.



This is from Wikipedia:

Cold War

See also: Cold War and Cold War (1979-1985)

TEXT

I hope this answers your question.

No, it only gives one side of it. For the rest of the story research Gorbachev's role - I think you'll see who can claim most credit...and I'm not going to get into a 'my link's better than your link' exchange.

Originally Posted by fab

The French and war are oxymorons
Chris Rock is only a moron

If I were French, I'd think you were being racist...

Originally Posted by biggedon

another snippet from Chris Rock on John McCain:

"who wants to vote for a "Mother ****ing" war hero that got caught....I'd rather vote for the "Mother ****er" war hero that got away!"


excuse the french, but it had the crowd roaring with laughter

Now that's funny, and true!

[fab]

Here's a site that claims to be Clinton supporters.

http://www.stop-obama.org/

[Raider]

Originally Posted by fab

The French and war are oxymorons
Chris Rock is only a moron

The news of the day is Obama refusing to give any credit for the reduced violence in Iraq.... He blames Bush for almost everything that's gone bad in this world, but whenever something good or positive happens such as the success of the recent surge, the one Obama voted against!, He refuses to admit he was wrong and fails to give credit where it's due..

Hard to believe some of you are backing this incompetent idiot.

Originally Posted by jasdon11

So are you saying that those two lines don't have the same meaning? On second thought, don't bother answering 'cos you'll only avoid the point again.

It's you who ignored my original point where Kennedy laid the groundwork for Vietnam, then going off the chart and saying the War didn't start until 1965 If you want to use LBJ instead, OK, he was just as incompetent as Kennedy and both were Democrats.... same result.

The scary thing is Kennedy and Johnson had more experience than Obama.

If Obama gets in, were doomed.

[draggar]

Originally Posted by bd77

Canada has socialized medicine and its a failure. Read just a fraction of the articles that I found on the internet.

Tell me again why we should embrace Canada's heathcare system? I think its going to be the other way around and you will embrace a privatized system of heathcare.

Yes, because putting profits should be ahead of treating people so that in the near future only the rich can afford to have treatments.

My wife dislocated her hip a few weeks ago. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital and they REFUSED to do anything until we signed tons of paperwork AND paid the copay.

The got the hip back in but then the x-ray tech dislocated it again while he was flipping her around to take X-rays so she had to go to the OR. Guess what? They refused to do anything, even though THEY dislocated it again, they left her withering in pain until I paid the copay for the OR visit and tried to charge me for both.

Prescription insurance companies only cover what they want to cover. If it is not "profitable" for them (their exact words on several occasions) then they won't cover it. One even told my wife they didn't think she needed the prescription. Um, how can some data entry clerk claim to know more about my wife and her medical history than her own doctor who has been treating her for years?

Insurance companies kill thousands of people a year because they refuse to cover treatments that would save lives (my father in law had to wait SIX MONTHS to remove one of his patient's appendix because the insurance company "needed to have their fiscal numbers look good"). The appendix ruptured and the insurance company refused to cover it because they blamed my father in law for "waiting so long".

Hillary tried to overhaul the medical system (when Bill was in office). She had a huge conference to get input. How many medical professionals did she invite? ZERO. She only invited lawyers, insurance companies, and lobbyists. Not a single person who knew the medical system was invited. Not a single person who is on the front lines.

Yes, the medical system here, under Republicans AND Democrats, is such a wonderful example of what it should be. (note: that last statement was sarcasm).

People should be glad that they're healthy. They should be glad that they never need anything too serious. Be ecstatic that the prescriptions they need are common and available as generics (we have some that cost us $50-$100 because the insurance company "can't afford it" (then where does all of the money I send them go?).

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by Raider

The news of the day is Obama refusing to give any credit for the reduced violence in Iraq.... He blames Bush for almost everything that's gone bad in this world, but whenever something good or positive happens such as the success of the recent surge, the one Obama voted against!, He refuses to admit he was wrong and fails to give credit where it's due..

Hard to believe some of you are backing this incompetent idiot.

That would be like thanking a rapist for pulling your knickers back up when he'd finished!


It's you who ignored my original point where Kennedy laid the groundwork for Vietnam, then going off the chart and saying the War didn't start until 1965 If you want to use LBJ instead, OK, he was just as incompetent as Kennedy and both were Democrats.... same result.

Go back and read it again. You blamed JFK for all those deaths in Vietnam; I said that US combat didn't start until 1965, 2 years after he died, not the war. If you can't understand the difference....

The scary thing is Kennedy and Johnson had more experience than Obama.

If Obama gets in, were doomed.

..

[H2FC]

Originally Posted by Raider

If Obama gets in, were doomed.

I'm almost certain Obama will be elected but don't worry Raider....you will benefit from his administration just as we all will. I believe he will get to work on the root cause of our main problems instead of the same old trial and error methods we've had for the last 8 years thats all but ruined our great country.

Our country needs to devote more time and money towards ridding ourselves of our fossil fuel addiction....thats the root cause of all of our problems and always will be until we're free from it. We need to be putting those $Billions now being wasted on destroying those in foreign lands towards solving this gigantic problem at home.

[biggedon]

Originally Posted by Raider

Not really, The Democrats and others on this Forum do plenty of that already. Almost every time Obama's name comes up, the Race card find it's way into the discussion. Maybe you can give us your take on why that is.

Rather than pollute my thread with sour political jokes, I would appreciate if you would post them in the appropriate section of the forum.

http://www.dnforum.com/f78/

you were the first to play the race card in post #6

Global distrust and resentment toward the United States did not begin with George W. Bush; Clinton, as president, fueled it, too. The true legacy of the first Clinton White House around the world precludes the former president’s illusory claim that he can somehow be the magician that would “restore America’s standing.” While Bill Clinton remains popular inside the United States, and perhaps among white elites in Europe, he would be an albatross, not a talisman, around the neck of future US policy in the Middle East and Africa. But that’s not all. His Latin America policies are remembered particularly bitterly in this hemisphere.

also about polluting your thread...



this is a political thread, you started it, but it does not give you dictatorship over who can post what here.

imo, as long as my comments are within the range of political comments surrounding republicans and democrats...then it's all good.


if you can't handle it then perhaps you shouldn't start it...

but i am not intimidated by you or anyone else who replies.

next!

[fab]

Originally Posted by H2FC

I'm almost certain Obama will be elected but don't worry Raider....you will benefit from his administration just as we all will. I believe he will get to work on the root cause of our main problems instead of the same old trial and error methods we've had for the last 8 years thats all but ruined our great country.

Our country needs to devote more time and money towards ridding ourselves of our fossil fuel addiction....thats the root cause of all of our problems and always will be until we're free from it. We need to be putting those $Billions now being wasted on destroying those in foreign lands towards solving this gigantic problem at home.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but if you've seen Obama's statements he's been very flip floppy, even a co-liberal Seraphim has pointed this out. I wouldn't expect politicians especially him to do what they promised.

As far as military goes, he's stated that he will remove troops in a year and a half, then move them to Afghanistan, remeber where Bush started, so I don't know how this will save money.

If you've read the McCain energy plan it's far closer to the Picken's plan, and Picken's himself has been critical of Gore's plans.

[bd77]

Originally Posted by draggar

Yes, because putting profits should be ahead of treating people so that in the near future only the rich can afford to have treatments.

My wife dislocated her hip a few weeks ago. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital and they REFUSED to do anything until we signed tons of paperwork AND paid the copay.

The got the hip back in but then the x-ray tech dislocated it again while he was flipping her around to take X-rays so she had to go to the OR. Guess what? They refused to do anything, even though THEY dislocated it again, they left her withering in pain until I paid the copay for the OR visit and tried to charge me for both.

Prescription insurance companies only cover what they want to cover. If it is not "profitable" for them (their exact words on several occasions) then they won't cover it. One even told my wife they didn't think she needed the prescription. Um, how can some data entry clerk claim to know more about my wife and her medical history than her own doctor who has been treating her for years?

Insurance companies kill thousands of people a year because they refuse to cover treatments that would save lives (my father in law had to wait SIX MONTHS to remove one of his patient's appendix because the insurance company "needed to have their fiscal numbers look good"). The appendix ruptured and the insurance company refused to cover it because they blamed my father in law for "waiting so long".

Hillary tried to overhaul the medical system (when Bill was in office). She had a huge conference to get