Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-r ... nt-n116306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Core interests demand it...", "stabilize regions...", please define.

"Obama said Wednesday that the United States will use military force “unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it - when our people are threatened; when our livelihood is at stake; or when the security of our allies is in danger.”
But, he added, “when issues of global concern that do not pose a direct threat to the United States are at stake - when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction - then the threshold for military action must be higher.”

In his remarks, Obama also laid out plans for a $5 billion “Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund” designed to help train other nations to combat terrorism and provide assistance to secure and stabilize regions where extremist groups thrive."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glb2U6y-GdU[/youtube]

Obushma at 2:29.

Cleavon Little Obama.

"He said the sheriff is near!"

Ivytalk wrote:Cleavon Little Obama.

"He said the sheriff is a ni-BONG!"

Classic!

Of course, that movie would probably not be allowed to be made these days.

And what, exactly, are our core interests?

Ibanez wrote:And what, exactly, are our core interests?

Obama's not allowed to tell you...it's none of your business.

It's their business...and business is good.

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:And what, exactly, are our core interests?

Obama's not allowed to tell you...it's none of your business.

It's their business...and business is good.

Oh. Okay. That makes sense.

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:And what, exactly, are our core interests?

Obama's not allowed to tell you...it's none of your business.

It's their business...and business is good.

coincidentally, our core interests align almost exactly with those of US defense contractors.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Obama's not allowed to tell you...it's none of your business.

It's their business...and business is good.

coincidentally, our core interests align almost exactly with those of US defense contractors.

Ibanez wrote:And what, exactly, are our core interests?

creating failed states

America Core interests:

See if you can spot the "trick" answer

1) Rare Earth Mining rights
2) Oil Extraction and Refining
3) Military Industrial growth
4) Freedom and Democracy

Chizzang wrote:America Core interests:

See if you can spot the "trick" answer

1) Honey Boo-Boo/Kim Kardashian
2) Wall Street
3) Apple Products
4) Grumpy Cat

FIFY

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:And what, exactly, are our core interests?

creating failed states

Plenty of those are created without any help from us.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
coincidentally, our core interests align almost exactly with those of US defense contractors.

You know he's right. Feel free to post on your phone if you need to toe the company line on their internet.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
coincidentally, our core interests align almost exactly with those of US defense contractors.

Yourself.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

You know he's right. Feel free to post on your phone if you need to toe the company line on their internet.

Eh. There's truth to it. But, it's not just defense contractors. There are pros and cons.

Can the industry be much smaller than it is? Yup.
Should we spend billions less than we do? Yup.
Should some projects, machines, etc.. be cancelled? Absolutely.
Do you want the government to do some of this stuff? Yes and No.

You reduce our military, our need to be technologically advanced and a military superpower and you'll see the # of defense contractors retract. It has already begun. There are plenty of projects drying up, people being let go, companies going out of business, companies reducing benefits and how much they charge the Gov't in an effort to be more competitive, etc..



PS, I'm not in defense.

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: You know he's right. Feel free to post on your phone if you need to toe the company line on their internet.

Eh. There's truth to it. But, it's not just defense contractors. There are pros and cons.

Can the industry be much smaller than it is? Yup.
Should we spend billions less than we do? Yup.
Should some projects, machines, etc.. be cancelled? Absolutely.
Do you want the government to do some of this stuff? Yes and No.

You reduce our military, our need to be technologically advanced and a military superpower and you'll see the # of defense contractors retract. It has already begun. There are plenty of projects drying up, people being let go, companies going out of business, companies reducing benefits and how much they charge the Gov't in an effort to be more competitive, etc..



PS, I'm not in defense.

But you're paid by a company that is, no?

Spoiler: show

FTR, I have no problem with that, but you should at least be aware of the reality.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
creating failed states

Plenty of those are created without any help from us.

Wait is this the new meme? Now that "BUT BUSH" doesnt work so well?

I wasnt talking about the ones that we didn't create, Einstein.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Eh. There's truth to it. But, it's not just defense contractors. There are pros and cons.

Can the industry be much smaller than it is? Yup.
Should we spend billions less than we do? Yup.
Should some projects, machines, etc.. be cancelled? Absolutely.
Do you want the government to do some of this stuff? Yes and No.

You reduce our military, our need to be technologically advanced and a military superpower and you'll see the # of defense contractors retract. It has already begun. There are plenty of projects drying up, people being let go, companies going out of business, companies reducing benefits and how much they charge the Gov't in an effort to be more competitive, etc..



PS, I'm not in defense.

But you're paid by a company that is, no?

Spoiler: show

FTR, I have no problem with that, but you should at least be aware of the reality.

I'm aware of the reality, who isn't? (In the industry) Yes, the company is in defense, civil, security, energy, healthcare, etc... Defense $$ no longer pay my bills.

CID1990 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Plenty of those are created without any help from us.

Wait is this the new meme? Now that "BUT BUSH" doesnt work so well?

I wasnt talking about the ones that we didn't create, Einstein.

Bush is still in office... we just call him Obama apparently

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Wait is this the new meme? Now that "BUT BUSH" doesnt work so well?

I wasnt talking about the ones that we didn't create, Einstein.

Bush is still in office... we just call him Obama apparently

nah they are distinguishable

Bush was a hell of a lot more likeable

Clinton even more so

And Daddy Bush too

so was Reagan

I guess we were just overdue for another Jimmeh

CID1990 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Plenty of those are created without any help from us.

Wait is this the new meme? Now that "BUT BUSH" doesnt work so well?

I wasnt talking about the ones that we didn't create, Einstein.

My point, Copernicus, is what's the harm in creating a couple more, as long as we get their natural resources and defense industry execs get their bonuses?

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Bush is still in office... we just call him Obama apparently

nah they are distinguishable

Bush was a hell of a lot more likeable

Clinton even more so

And Daddy Bush too

so was Reagan

I guess we were just overdue for another Jimmeh

Well pardon me if we don't completely agree (I'd nit-pick a few details in your above post)
but the overall tone of the post passes the sniff test
Yes Obama has proven to be a douche
but I didn't find the silver spoon buffoon any more or less enjoyable either

Grizalltheway wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Wait is this the new meme? Now that "BUT BUSH" doesnt work so well?

I wasnt talking about the ones that we didn't create, Einstein.

My point, Copernicus, is what's the harm in creating a couple more, as long as we get their natural resources and defense industry execs get their bonuses?

watch what I do and take notes

lesson one: dont try to make points with nonsequiturs

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
nah they are distinguishable

Bush was a hell of a lot more likeable

Clinton even more so

And Daddy Bush too

so was Reagan

I guess we were just overdue for another Jimmeh

Well pardon me if we don't completely agree (I'd nit-pick a few details in your above post)
but the overall tone of the post passes the sniff test
Yes Obama has proven to be a douche
but I didn't find the silver spoon buffoon any more or less enjoyable either

im happy that the smell of my post is less than offensive to you

CID1990 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: My point, Copernicus, is what's the harm in creating a couple more, as long as we get their natural resources and defense industry execs get their bonuses?

watch what I do and take notes

lesson one: dont try to make points with nonsequiturs

Howza bout you just lick my nutsack instead, you snarky fuck?