Richardson Endorses Obama

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who sought to become the nationâ??s first Hispanic president this year, plans to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination on Friday at a campaign event in Oregon, according to an Obama adviser.

Mr. Richardson, a former congressman and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, dropped out of the Democratic race in January after finishing behind Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Since then, both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have aggressively courted Mr. Richardson for his endorsement. Mrs. Clinton had also deployed her husband, and Mr. Richardsonâ??s former boss, to seek the governorâ??s political support; former President Bill Clinton watched the Super Bowl in February with Mr. Richardson, and both Clintons had spent time on the phone trying to persuade him to back her candidacy.

In a statement explaining his endorsement, which was provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning, Mr. Richardson hailed Mr. Obamaâ??s judgment and ability to be commander-in-chief â?? qualities that Mrs. Clinton has called into question in recent weeks on the campaign trail.

â??I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore Americaâ??s moral leadership in the world,â?� Mr. Richardson said in the statement. â??As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obamaâ??s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.â?�
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us...d-endorse.html

Yeah, he's a real uniter! He's proven everything BUT that as of late. :wtf:

IF Obama is the candidate, how many think that Richardson just cut a deal for the V.P. position?

Have a good one!:s4:

Hmmm...I was under the impression that rats jump off of a sinking ship, not jump on the damn thing as it's going down, lol. Are we possibly seeing the democrats' general election ticket?

I hear Kim Jung Ill is just kickin' it, waiting to see his old buddy Gov. Bill again...and is anxiously awaiting a meeting with the 'great uniter'.
I'd bet that he's hopes Obama is as gullible as Clinton was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Hmmm...I was under the impression that rats jump off of a sinking ship, not jump on the damn thing as it's going down, lol. Are we possibly seeing the democrats' general election ticket?

I hear Kim Jung Ill is just kickin' it, waiting to see his old buddy Gov. Bill again...and is anxiously awaiting a meeting with the 'great uniter'.
I'd bet that he's hopes Obama is as gullible as Clinton was.

---

I think this will be one of the more important endorsements for Obama in the primary. Partly because it may sway some hispanic voters toward him and away from Clinton in the final states, but mostly because it may influence unpledged superdelegates.

I doubt it has anything to do with a VP deal, but I kind of like Richardson from a policy point of view --- not 100%, but decent. I think those Rocky Mountain state Democratic governors are more my style of Democrat in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

I hear Kim Jung Ill is just kickin' it, waiting to see his old buddy Gov. Bill again...and is anxiously awaiting a meeting with the 'great uniter'.
I'd bet that he's hopes Obama is as gullible as Clinton was.

---

I'll bet he and others are counting on it. Good time for Iran to go forth with nuclear power of "peacefull" purposes.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I'll bet he and others are counting on it. Good time for Iran to go forth with nuclear power of "peacefull" purposes.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Iran and North Korea made their progress on their nuclear programs under Bush. Clinton had North Korea in effective negotiations over their nuclear program (basically buying them off, but it worked), Bush cut them off, so they decided to do whatever the hell they wanted, so now North Korea has a nuke. Heckuva job Bushie! You showed them!

Iran decided to go ahead with their nuke program while we were busy killing off their enemies for them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe he got mixed up with that whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, "Iraq is my enemy, and Iran is Iraq's enemy, so Iran is my friend? Is that right, Condi? Iran is my friend? No? Hell, these Muslims is confusin'!"

Say what you want about Clinton, but North Korea got their bomb under Bush's watch and Iran has basically told the world to suck it while they make their bomb without consequences. In the meantime Bush went after the one member of the "axis of evil" who wasn't actualy making a bomb! Lost another game of Three-Bomb-Monty, Bush? You guessed Iraq, but it was North Korea! Must've got mixed up when Saddam said he WASN'T making a bomb, and Kim said he WAS. Outsmarted yourself with that reverse phsycholgy again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Iran and North Korea made their progress on their nuclear programs under Bush. Clinton had North Korea in effective negotiations over their nuclear program (basically buying them off, but it worked), Bush cut them off, so they decided to do whatever the hell they wanted, so now North Korea has a nuke. Heckuva job Bushie! You showed them!

---

Hmmm...really? Nice propoganda, but lacking in reality.

NewsHour Extra: North Korean Nukes -- Jan. 8, 2003

"In 1994, the Clinton administration convinced North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program and allow United Nations monitors into the country. In return, the U.S. and other countries pledged to replace North Korea's nuclear power plants that produce plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons, with light-water reactors, which don't. They also agreed to send North Korea oil to help replace the electricity lost when the nuclear plants shut down.

Both sides also agreed to lift trade barriers and pursue diplomatic and economic relations, including economic aid to North Korea.

However, North Korea's admission that it had not completely ended its nuclear program angered the U.S. enough to stop the fuel oil shipments. North Korea countered that the U.S. did not fulfill its promises from the 1994 agreement, including the construction of the power plants. U.S. officials say this will not happen until North Korea allows greater nuclear weapons inspections throughout the country."

Sure...Clinton's administration made the nuke deal that N. Korea agreed to. (and violated from the very start) Then they had tried to blackmail us back to 'the bargaining table' to get more economic aid, food and oil from us, using their illegal nuke program as a bargaining chip. By the time N. Korea was advanced enough with the technology to test the weapon, (a dud) it was Bush's term, and blackmail wasn't the best of strategies for the N. Koreans. Bush wouldn't fall for the tactics, and demanded the 6-way talks.

Had Clinton's administration demanded verification of compliance before shipping all that oil and food over there, and not allow one shovel-full of dirt be turned on the light-water reactors till compliance was verified, perhaps N. Korea's story would be different, but as B. Clinton was so fond of taking half-measures, it's no wonder he dropped this ball, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

IF Obama is the candidate, how many think that Richardson just cut a deal for the V.P. position?

Have a good one!:s4:

---

hahaha. That's hilarious. I wouldn't say VP but there's no doubt he cut a deal for an important cabinet position. What an typical political opportunist Bill Richardson is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Iran and North Korea made their progress on their nuclear programs under Bush. Clinton had North Korea in effective negotiations over their nuclear program (basically buying them off, but it worked), Bush cut them off, so they decided to do whatever the hell they wanted, so now North Korea has a nuke. Heckuva job Bushie! You showed them!

Say what you want about Clinton, but North Korea got their bomb under Bush's watch and Iran has basically told the world to suck it while they make their bomb without consequences.

---

Revisionist history regarding N. Korea...but hey, that's cool. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did a HELL OF A JOB!:wtf:

As for Iran...before they EVER have a functional nuke either Israel or the U.S. will put a halt to that shit.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Revisionist history regarding N. Korea...but hey, that's cool. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did a HELL OF A JOB!:wtf:

As for Iran...before they EVER have a functional nuke either Israel or the U.S. will put a halt to that shit.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Hmmm...really? Nice propoganda, but lacking in reality.

NewsHour Extra: North Korean Nukes -- Jan. 8, 2003

"In 1994, the Clinton administration convinced North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program and allow United Nations monitors into the country. In return, the U.S. and other countries pledged to replace North Korea's nuclear power plants that produce plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons, with light-water reactors, which don't. They also agreed to send North Korea oil to help replace the electricity lost when the nuclear plants shut down.

Both sides also agreed to lift trade barriers and pursue diplomatic and economic relations, including economic aid to North Korea.

However, North Korea's admission that it had not completely ended its nuclear program angered the U.S. enough to stop the fuel oil shipments. North Korea countered that the U.S. did not fulfill its promises from the 1994 agreement, including the construction of the power plants. U.S. officials say this will not happen until North Korea allows greater nuclear weapons inspections throughout the country."

Sure...Clinton's administration made the nuke deal that N. Korea agreed to. (and violated from the very start) Then they had tried to blackmail us back to 'the bargaining table' to get more economic aid, food and oil from us, using their illegal nuke program as a bargaining chip. By the time N. Korea was advanced enough with the technology to test the weapon, (a dud) it was Bush's term, and blackmail wasn't the best of strategies for the N. Koreans. Bush wouldn't fall for the tactics, and demanded the 6-way talks.

Had Clinton's administration demanded verification of compliance before shipping all that oil and food over there, and not allow one shovel-full of dirt be turned on the light-water reactors till compliance was verified, perhaps N. Korea's story would be different, but as B. Clinton was so fond of taking half-measures, it's no wonder he dropped this ball, too.

---

The diplomatic impasse you mentioned occurred during Bush's term, not Clinton's. The deal held throughout Clinton's term and began to fall apart under Bsuh in 2002. North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the Bush administration to fulfill the United States' end of the 1994 agreement to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through light-water nuclear reactors. They kicked out the monitoring teams and shut off the cameras and went back to using their heavy-water reactors. The US insisted on the so-called six-party talks rather than direct negotiations. North Korea wouldn't accept the six-party talks, so instead they built and tested a nuclear bomb in 2006.

The bomb was tested in Bush's second term, so I think you're going to have a little trouble blaming that on Clinton or Jimmy Carter! Ridiculous! Talk about revisionist history! No, Bush had 5 years to keep them from getting a nuke and he blew it. It's on him. If Iran gets the bomb, it'll be on him as well. The guy is so worried about looking like an appeaser that he won't negotiate with enemies and they just end up doing whatever the hell they want. They know he's too tied down in Iraq to bomb them, which is his preferred method of negotiation, so if he won't talk, screw him. He wouldn't negotiate with North Korea, and now they have a nuke. What a fool.

Bush is so afraid of looking weak by negotiating with our enemies, that he ends up looking like either a warmonger for attacking them, or a pussiy for letting them do what they want. There is a way to deal with other countries that is somewhere between bombing them and just letting them do things you would rather not have them do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

The diplomatic impasse you mentioned occurred during Bush's term, not Clinton's. The deal held throughout Clinton's term and began to fall apart under Bsuh in 2002. North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the Bush administration to fulfill the United States' end of the 1994 agreement to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through light-water nuclear reactors. They kicked out the monitoring teams and shut off the cameras and went back to using their heavy-water reactors. The US insisted on the so-called six-party talks rather than direct negotiations. North Korea wouldn't accept the six-party talks, so instead they built and tested a nuclear bomb in 2006.

The bomb was tested in Bush's second term, so I think you're going to have a little trouble blaming that on Clinton or Jimmy Carter! Ridiculous! Talk about revisionist history! No, Bush had 5 years to keep them from getting a nuke and he blew it. It's on him. If Iran gets the bomb, it'll be on him as well. The guy is so worried about looking like an appeaser that he won't negotiate with enemies and they just end up doing whatever the hell they want. They know he's too tied down in Iraq to bomb them, which is his preferred method of negotiation, so if he won't talk, screw him. He wouldn't negotiate with North Korea, and now they have a nuke. What a fool.

---

Fairytales. Been reading blogs from revisionist fools again, huh?
When one gets all of life's info, from a website launched to take advantage of those too slow to think for themselves, one risks becoming allarmingly obtuse. The bloggers are laughing at y'all, all the way to the bank, lol.


Happy Easter all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

The bomb was tested in Bush's second term, so I think you're going to have a little trouble blaming that on Clinton or Jimmy Carter! Ridiculous! Talk about revisionist history! No, Bush had 5 years to keep them from getting a nuke and he blew it.

---

Pretty weak excuse here.......this is like saying that if I give a 7 year old an empty pistol and he shoots someone it's not my fault; who gave him the bullets? :wtf:

The Carter/Clinton deal put nuclear technology in the hands of a nut!

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Fairytales. Been reading blogs from revisionist fools again, huh?
When one gets all of life's info, from a website launched to take advantage of those too slow to think for themselves, one risks becoming allarmingly obtuse. The bloggers are laughing at y'all, all the way to the bank, lol.


Happy Easter all.

---

I don't really visit websites about politics, history or current events at all. This is how I remember it while it was happening. Which of the facts I stated is untrue?

1. The diplomatic impasse you mentioned occurred during Bush's term, not Clinton's.
   
2. The deal held throughout Clinton's term and began to fall apart under Bush in 2002.
   
3. North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the Bush administration to fulfill the United States' end of the 1994 agreement to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through light-water nuclear reactors.
   
4. They kicked out the monitoring teams and shut off the cameras and went back to using their heavy-water reactors.
   
5. The US insisted on the so-called six-party talks rather than direct negotiations.
   
6. North Korea wouldn't accept the six-party talks, so instead they built and tested a nuclear bomb in 2006.

Seems like maybe you are the one trying to revise history if you are saying it's Clinton's fault North Korea got the bomb five years into Bush's presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Which of the facts I stated is untrue?

1. The diplomatic impasse you mentioned occurred during Bush's term, not Clinton's.
   
2. The deal held throughout Clinton's term and began to fall apart under Bush in 2002.
   
3. North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the Bush administration to fulfill the United States' end of the 1994 agreement to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through light-water nuclear reactors.
   
4. They kicked out the monitoring teams and shut off the cameras and went back to using their heavy-water reactors.
   
5. The US insisted on the so-called six-party talks rather than direct negotiations.
   
6. North Korea wouldn't accept the six-party talks, so instead they built and tested a nuclear bomb in 2006.

---

1. In the summer of 2002, U.S. intelligence reportedly discovered evidence to support suspicions that North Korea was engaged in procurement activities for the development of a uranium enrichment program. However, in the late 1980s, North Korea was already acquiring dual-use equipment that could be used for uranium metal processing and applied to a uranium enrichment program. On February 4, 2004, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan confessed that he had led a smuggling ring that transferred uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, but Pakistani authorities have not allowed outsiders to have access to Khan, so the exact details of the transfers are uncertain.
NTI: Issue Brief: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program and the Six-party Talks

2. You have proof on that? Active nuke programs take quite a few years to develop the facilities, processes, technology, hardware and then there's the testing. A clandestine program of course takes longer, due to it's secretive nature, and black market delays.

3. NTI: Issue Brief: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program and the Six-party Talks
"In April 2006, representatives from the delegations to the Six-party Talks attended an academic conference in Tokyo with the hope of jumpstarting another round of talks; however, their efforts proved to be unsuccessful. The major obstacles to re-starting this diplomatic effort include Pyongyang's insistence on its right to use peaceful nuclear technology, and Washington's efforts to address North Korea's alleged illicit activities such as counterfeiting, narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

4. How would they re-start a nuke weapons program with all those inspectors running around...? Quite the safety hazard, if you ask me.

5. Accountability, witnesses to the dialogue, and leverage from those that give aid to your holier than thou, N. Korea. You act as if the N. Koreans have been abused by us, when we are the propaganda tool Kim Jung Ill uses to whip his folks into a fear of pre-emptive nuke strikes about to be carried out by the US. I guess state sponsored drug trafficking, counterfeiting US currency, and is proliferating WMD's...is fine? Their leader is a nut case, unstable at the very least.

6. Yup. And it was a dud. Do you think they would stop the development of nukes if the talks were deemed "sucessful"? Really? Do you trust anything he does? Do you agree with his foreign policy, or the way he treats his people while amassing a huge and unsupportable army that can't yet pop it's own nukes? Or do you agree with his view, that feeding his nation is secondary to presumed 'international stature'?

Get real. He's not a victim.

you know what i get real sick and tired of is everyone who supports bush blame all the problems with his presadancy on clinton. now i dont care fro clinton i have never liked him but you cant blame all the problems in the current administration on him. but its just like talkin to my father bush is an absolute saint that every breath he exhales is gold laced and rosie when he is one of the biggest asses in the country.

by the way i am in no way saying clinton was a super god either he was pretty much fucked up to.

but lats start a list here:
n. korea - clintons fault
iraq- clintons fault
economy - clintons fault
national debt - clintons fault
inflation - clintons fault
unemploymeant - clinton again
911 - clintons fault
katrina - clintons fault

this is just a small portion of the things that have went to shit in the last 7 years that i have been told are clintons fault when poor little george jr is just trying to clean up the mess.

now i do realize some of the fuck ups george has in his term are inherited but if it takes him 8 years to sort them out well .....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yokinazu

you know what i get real sick and tired of is everyone who supports bush blame all the problems with his presadancy on clinton. now i dont care fro clinton i have never liked him but you cant blame all the problems in the current administration on him. but its just like talkin to my father bush is an absolute saint that every breath he exhales is gold laced and rosie when he is one of the biggest asses in the country.

by the way i am in no way saying clinton was a super god either he was pretty much fucked up to.

but lats start a list here:
n. korea - clintons fault
iraq- clintons fault
economy - clintons fault
national debt - clintons fault
inflation - clintons fault
unemploymeant - clinton again
911 - clintons fault
katrina - clintons fault

this is just a small portion of the things that have went to shit in the last 7 years that i have been told are clintons fault when poor little george jr is just trying to clean up the mess.

now i do realize some of the fuck ups george has in his term are inherited but if it takes him 8 years to sort them out well .....

---

Monica - Clinton's fault
cuts in defense budget - Clinton's fault Clinton Sends Congress Detailed $1.5 Trillion Budget - The Tech
NAFTA - Clinton's fault
Chappaquiddick - Clinton's fault (or was that one of the Kennedy fiasco's...?)

Yeah, it's been keeping Pres. Bush busy the past couple of terms.

Me too. Gives one carpel tunnel trying daily to defend truth, justice and the American way. (Superman used to say that before Hollywood decided the American way didn't suit Superman's politics)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

NAFTA - Clinton's fault

---

You can also thank Hillary for secretly pushing this one... then later attempting to deny her involvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

1. In the summer of 2002, U.S. intelligence reportedly discovered evidence to support suspicions that North Korea was engaged in procurement activities for the development of a uranium enrichment program. However, in the late 1980s, North Korea was already acquiring dual-use equipment that could be used for uranium metal processing and applied to a uranium enrichment program. On February 4, 2004, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan confessed that he had led a smuggling ring that transferred uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, but Pakistani authorities have not allowed outsiders to have access to Khan, so the exact details of the transfers are uncertain.
NTI: Issue Brief: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program and the Six-party Talks

2. You have proof on that? Active nuke programs take quite a few years to develop the facilities, processes, technology, hardware and then there's the testing. A clandestine program of course takes longer, due to it's secretive nature, and black market delays.

3. NTI: Issue Brief: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program and the Six-party Talks
"In April 2006, representatives from the delegations to the Six-party Talks attended an academic conference in Tokyo with the hope of jumpstarting another round of talks; however, their efforts proved to be unsuccessful. The major obstacles to re-starting this diplomatic effort include Pyongyang's insistence on its right to use peaceful nuclear technology, and Washington's efforts to address North Korea's alleged illicit activities such as counterfeiting, narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

4. How would they re-start a nuke weapons program with all those inspectors running around...? Quite the safety hazard, if you ask me.

5. Accountability, witnesses to the dialogue, and leverage from those that give aid to your holier than thou, N. Korea. You act as if the N. Koreans have been abused by us, when we are the propaganda tool Kim Jung Ill uses to whip his folks into a fear of pre-emptive nuke strikes about to be carried out by the US. I guess state sponsored drug trafficking, counterfeiting US currency, and is proliferating WMD's...is fine? Their leader is a nut case, unstable at the very least.

6. Yup. And it was a dud. Do you think they would stop the development of nukes if the talks were deemed "sucessful"? Really? Do you trust anything he does? Do you agree with his foreign policy, or the way he treats his people while amassing a huge and unsupportable army that can't yet pop it's own nukes? Or do you agree with his view, that feeding his nation is secondary to presumed 'international stature'?

Get real. He's not a victim.

---

Lets get one thing straight --- I despise Kim Jong-il. He's a despot and tyrant. He uses his country like hostages and starves them to extort money, food and fuel out of the rest of the world. We in the US and the other countries of the world care more for his people than he does. He lies. He breaks his agreements. He uses blackmail and extortion. The sooner he is swinging from the end of a rope the better.

This is why it was imperative that he not get a nuclear weapon. It's insulting to me for you to suggest that because I am critical of Bush's failure to prevent this lunatic from getting the bomb that somehow I have some kind of sympathy for Kim. That's idiotic. Where do you get off insinuating that?

Here is how this topic has proceeded so far:

You and P4B opened the subject by suggesting that Kim would be happy to have Obama in office because he would be gullible on the issue of nukes and suggesting that Clinton had been gullible as well.

I pointed out that Kim got the bomb during Bush's term, not Clinton's. And I said Bush deserves the blame for allowing North Korea to develop a nuke.

You said the development happend under Clinton and was only tested under Bush.

I proivided a timeline to support my take on this issue --- the agreement fell apart under Bush, and The Bomb was tested five years into Bush's term.

You suggested I get my information from revisionist websites.

I asked you if you could rebut any of the facts I stated.

You provided links and information that do not rebut those facts, and then you suggested I have some kind of sympathy for this dangerous madman that Bush let get a nuke.

Pretty weak arguments you make when they mostly consist of suggesting I get my information from dubious sources and implying I somehow support a psychotic nutcase that Bush let get the bomb. Maybe try to stick to facts and refrain from making it personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

5. Accountability, witnesses to the dialogue, and leverage from those that give aid to your holier than thou, N. Korea.

---

Not MY "holier than thou, N. Korea." How insulting that you even suggest that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

You act as if the N. Koreans have been abused by us, when we are the propaganda tool Kim Jung Ill uses to whip his folks into a fear of pre-emptive nuke strikes about to be carried out by the US.

---

I never said anything of the kind. Where do you get this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

I guess state sponsored drug trafficking, counterfeiting US currency, and is proliferating WMD's...is fine?

---

If you feel these things are fine, then that is your belief. But I personally disagree. I certainly never said any of these things are fine, so unless you are presuming to put words in my mouth, I'm assuming you are taking ownership of this conclusion. But honestly, is this the kind of guy who should have a nuclear weapon? I sure wish Bush had done something to keep The Bomb out of this criminal's hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Their leader is a nut case, unstable at the very least.

---

Well, we agree on that. Bush probalby should have done something to keep this unstable nut case from getting a nuke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

6. Yup. And it was a dud.

---

A dud! Yea! Nothing to worry about then! Bush is a genius for allowing North Korea to develop a dud nuke. The yield was about a kiloton, so it probably was not fully successful. Still, a pretty big bang. How close would you like to be to a one-kiloton blast?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Do you think they would stop the development of nukes if the talks were deemed "sucessful"? Really?

---

Well, I guess I would define "successful" as stopping the development. How would you define successful? I would say failure would be defined by any strategy that allowed him to continue the development, such as Bush's strategy that resulted in North Korea developing a nuclear bomb. Do you think Bush's strategy was successful? Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Do you trust anything he does?

---

No I do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Do you agree with his foreign policy, or the way he treats his people while amassing a huge and unsupportable army that can't yet pop it's own nukes?

---

No I do not. Are you suggesting I do? What does it have to do with Bush letting him get the bomb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Or do you agree with his view, that feeding his nation is secondary to presumed 'international stature'?

---

No I do not. Are you suggesting I do? Anyone with this kind of outlook should not have a nuke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Get real. He's not a victim.

---

Again we agree. But are you suggesting I think he is a victim? No, he's not a victim --- he's a dangerous psychopath with a nuclear weapon. Damn, I wish that had been prevented!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Lets get one thing straight... Here is how this topic has proceeded so far:

You and P4B opened the subject by suggesting that Kim would be happy to have Obama in office because he would be gullible on the issue of nukes and suggesting that Clinton had been gullible as well.

---

So we've move on from re-writing history, to re-writing my posts now? I just said they are gullible, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I proivided a timeline to support my take on this issue --- the agreement fell apart under Bush, and The Bomb was tested five years into Bush's term.

---

You fail to mention that he had been working on the nukes since the 80's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

You suggested I get my information from revisionist websites.

---

Yup. Not much difference in syntax, intent, and content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

You provided links and information that do not rebut those facts, and then you suggested I have some kind of sympathy for this dangerous madman that Bush let get a nuke.

---

Wasn't an attempt to rebut your points, but to fill in your missing facts. In your Bush-Bashing, you left yourself open to interpretation. You were the one defending KJI's behaviors and his 'reasons' for doing so. I rebutted those inuendo's with links.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Pretty weak arguments you make when they mostly consist of suggesting I get my information from dubious sources and implying I somehow support a psychotic nutcase that Bush let get the bomb. Maybe try to stick to facts and refrain from making it personal.

---

Actually, I welcome facts, unlike others here to whom factless statements roll off the tongue like little pointless darts, missing their intended targets.
The fact is you bash the administration with bullshit inuendo and a shaky game of connect-the-dots. Blindly throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, is a lazy way to defend ones position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Not MY "holier than thou, N. Korea." How insulting that you even suggest that. I never said anything of the kind. Where do you get this?

---

You choose to bash my countries' administration unchallenged? I refrain from bashing my own country, because I believe in it as a whole. I do not hang with a crowd that get's off by bashing all things american. You were the one defending KJI, his reasoning and his actions. How insulting indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

If you feel these things are fine, then that is your belief. But I personally disagree. I certainly never said any of these things are fine, so unless you are presuming to put words in my mouth, I'm assuming you are taking ownership of this conclusion.

---

I take ownership for my words and views daily.
You may have never said they were fine, yet you declare his reasoning was a direct result of the Bush administration bungling the diplomacy. Diplomacy has never worked with KJI, and likely never will. It's just another promise to break.
You show a propensity to accept a despotic madman's reasoning over that of the president of the United States, our diplomats, and the UN's IAEA inspectors. To me...that's insulting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

A dud! Yea! Nothing to worry about then! Bush is a genius for allowing North Korea to develop a dud nuke. The yield was about a kiloton, so it probably was not fully successful. Still, a pretty big bang. How close would you like to be to a one-kiloton blast?

---

There is no magic dust Bush could have sprinkled over N. Korea. No magic wand. No crossing his arms, and blinking, to get N. Korea to comply. Our only tool was diplomacy, and the humanitarian goods we give them.
You defy your own logic. If you had wanted us to lob a few nukes his way, you should have said so from the start. Could have saved a lot of research and typing, as I agree with that course of action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Well, I guess I would define "successful" as stopping the development. How would you define successful? I would say failure would be defined by any strategy that allowed him to continue the development, such as Bush's strategy that resulted in North Korea developing a nuclear bomb. Do you think Bush's strategy was successful? Really?

---

To me...sucessful would be...Walking on the beach during a warm summer's evening, arm-in-arm with Amber (my wife) looking out over the ocean, watching the water slowly roll up the sand, scanning the horizon to the northwest, and seeing the greenish glow of a former N. Korea. But, a conventional assault on the capitol city would be fine, too.
I think that N. Korea isn't out of the woods yet, and should be mindful of their false sense of security. Yes, Bush's policy has benefitted the disarmament process, but no...I do not believe diplomacy is the answer.
KJI has never honored an agreement, yet, and continues to flatulate his importance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

What does it have to do with Bush letting him get the bomb?

---

Again with the accusations. WTF do you suppose he should have done? China is their biggest benefactor, and a neighbor to boot. Do you think they would just close their eyes till we were done making their ally glow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Again we agree. But are you suggesting I think he is a victim? No, he's not a victim --- he's a dangerous psychopath with a nuclear weapon. Damn, I wish that had been prevented!

---

A plus-rep for the 'bold' honesty. :jointsmile:
Crap: Tried to rep, but need to spread some before giving you more, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

You were the one defending KJI's behaviors and his 'reasons' for doing so.

---

I never defended his reasons. I once mentioned the reasons Kim cited for pulling out of the agreement, but I do not defend them.

Here it is:

"North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the Bush administration to fulfill the United States' end of the 1994 agreement to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions, begin normalization of relations, and help North Korea supply some energy needs through light-water nuclear reactors."

That fact is, he did cite those reasons. And then the American resopnse to that would be, "Yeah, we didn't come through with our end, because you were cheating on your end!" So, no, I don't DEFEND his pulling out of the agreement or his reasons.

But we lost more than they did by letting the negotiations break down. They got a nuke. We got ... what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

You choose to bash my countries' administration unchallenged? I refrain from bashing my own country, because I believe in it as a whole. I do not hang with a crowd that get's off by bashing all things american. You were the one defending KJI, his reasoning and his actions. How insulting indeed.

---

Do you extend your restraint to candidates, or only to elected presidents? Is it only after a candidate is elected that they become immune from criticism? And then does that immunity expire after they leave office as it apparently did with Clinton? It'll be interesting to see how much restraint you exercise when Obama or Clinton is in office. If you do feel a need to criticise one of them while they are in office, will you equate that with "bashing all things American?"

I feel it is perfectly fair to criticise a sitting president for his failures, reagardless of partisanship. My critcism of Bush for failing in our American policy goals in North Korea does not amount to "America Bashing." And it does not amount to defending North Korea --- get past that, man, I do not defend them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

You may have never said they were fine, yet you declare his reasoning was a direct result of the Bush administration bungling the diplomacy.

---

I do not know where you get this shit. I did not defend Kim's reasoning. I DID declare the Bush administration bungled the diplomacy, but that does not equate to defending North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Diplomacy has never worked with KJI, and likely never will. It's just another promise to break.

---

Kim abuses diplomacy. He lies and cheats. He is extremely difficult to deal with. But diplomacy has worked to some extent, because he can be basically bought off. Unless you want a war, diplomacy is your only route. Failing to use diplomacy obviously did not work --- he got a nuke out of it. One of Bush's problems is his stark black and white world view, things like, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," or this idea that becasue North Korea is dishonest, they can't be dealt with at all. If Bush wasn't up to the difficult job, he should not have signed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

You show a propensity to accept a despotic madman's reasoning over that of the president of the United States, our diplomats, and the UN's IAEA inspectors. To me...that's insulting!

---

Again with this crap. I do not sympathize with Kim or accept his reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

There is no magic dust Bush could have sprinkled over N. Korea. No magic wand. No crossing his arms, and blinking, to get N. Korea to comply. Our only tool was diplomacy, and the humanitarian goods we give them.

---

Yes, those are our only tools in this case, and it does us no good if we don't use them. I actually have a feeling that Bush was attempting the magic dust, waving the wand, crossing the arms and blinking method. You should have told him that wouldn't work!

I hope that you will refrain from questioning my patriotism, or saying I "bash America first," or suggesting I sympathize with a despicable tyrant just because I think Bush failed to achieve a crucial foregin policy goal.

I think we agree that it was an important goal to keep North Korea from getting a nuke. They have one now. They got it five years into Bush's presidency after years of diplomatic stalemate. I say it is because Bush failed diplomatically. Personally, I think Bush tends to put his own ideas of right and wrong ahead of the country's real interests. I think he didn't want to deal with them because thay are liars and cheats, and that resulted in failing to achieve our foreign policy goal. He put his own principles and desire to teach them a lesson ahead of preventing them from getting a nuke.

You are certainly free to disagree with that, but try to do it in a way that doesn't say I am less of an American than you.

Suffice it to say that I was reacting to the tone and content of your arguments.

If someone cares to bash Bush, and it's a valid bash, they will likely never hear a peep out of me. If someone wants to rant away, using propoganda, false information, questionable timelines, obtuse rationale or outright lies...I'm quite capable of taking the time to verify the info, and respond accordingly. I do it daily.

And when was the last time bashing a president did any good? Were I to bash Clinton on a daily basis, would my views sway you without facts? Would you blindly accept my views without finding out the facts for yourself? This is what the liberal broadcast media has come to expect from us. Blind acceptance of propoganda.
My responses are generally aimed to present an opposing set of facts, that rival the premise of the post. I don't for a second think I can change anyone's mind, but perhaps if I could just open a mind or two, it's well worth the effort.

When the time arises and Bush is no longer in the White House, I'll likely defend the sitting president. (let's hope it's not a democrat, lol) Depending on who's elected to the office, my zeal may not be as evident...but doubtful I'd just start bashing for the sake of bashing.

But I wasn't the one trying to blame the USA (Bush) for 're-starting' their (continued since the 80's) nuke program. He restarted the program because he wants nukes.
How you feel about your patriotism, is up to you. I don't really give a damn, either way. For me it's not about who is more the American, or who is more patriotic..it's who has their facts straight, and who is peddling bullshit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Suffice it to say that I was reacting to the tone and content of your arguments.

If someone cares to bash Bush, and it's a valid bash, they will likely never hear a peep out of me. If someone wants to rant away, using propoganda, false information, questionable timelines, obtuse rationale or outright lies...I'm quite capable of taking the time to verify the info, and respond accordingly. I do it daily.

And when was the last time bashing a president did any good? Were I to bash Clinton on a daily basis, would my views sway you without facts? Would you blindly accept my views without finding out the facts for yourself? This is what the liberal broadcast media has come to expect from us. Blind acceptance of propoganda.
My responses are generally aimed to present an opposing set of facts, that rival the premise of the post. I don't for a second think I can change anyone's mind, but perhaps if I could just open a mind or two, it's well worth the effort.

When the time arises and Bush is no longer in the White House, I'll likely defend the sitting president. (let's hope it's not a democrat, lol) Depending on who's elected to the office, my zeal may not be as evident...but doubtful I'd just start bashing for the sake of bashing.

But I wasn't the one trying to blame the USA (Bush) for 're-starting' their (continued since the 80's) nuke program. He restarted the program because he wants nukes.
How you feel about your patriotism, is up to you. I don't really give a damn, either way. For me it's not about who is more the American, or who is more patriotic..it's who has their facts straight, and who is peddling bullshit?

---

Great. Let's you and I leave it at that and let this thread get back to "Richardson Endorses Obama" if it can.

Hey, I heard somewhere that Bill Richardson is blowing smoke up the ass of Obama, possibly in hopes of landing a V.P. position. Any thoughts on this? :D

(Yeah, I know... I'm an assclown.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Great. Let's you and I leave it at that and let this thread get back to "Richardson Endorses Obama" if it can.

---

Sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine

Hey, I heard somewhere that Bill Richardson is blowing smoke up the ass of Obama, possibly in hopes of landing a V.P. position. Any thoughts on this? :D

(Yeah, I know... I'm an assclown.)

---

LOL....that was my first thought. NOT the assclown thing either!:thumbsup: Going after that hyspanic vote ya know.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine

(Yeah, I know... I'm an assclown.)

---

Ha ha! "Assclown" strikes again! I heard the term "assclown" used in a TV show last night! I thought that was just a canncom thing, becasue this is the only place I've heard it before, but apparantly it is in the wild now.

It was on "Breaking Bad." If you haven't seen the show, I think it is pretty good. A straight-laced high-school chemistry teacher gets lung cancer and has all kinds of money troubles, so he ends up breaking bad" and hooking up with a meth cooker to cook high-quality chemistry-teacher meth and make some extra cash for his treatments and his family before he dies. There are a lot of cannabis references, but at least one of them was not exactly right on --- guy used the term "skunk" weed in a disparaging way. Despite that little slip up, the show has been pretty entertaining, and it has its thoguht-provoking moments as well.

Ok, now back to the Richardson and Obama show....

Just posted a thread about "Breaking Bad" : http://boards.cannabis.com/tv-movies...ml#post1833304

Ok, NOW back to Richardson....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Going after that hyspanic vote ya know.

---

Obama is the best candidate for the endorsement. One of the few things I like about Hilary is her commitment to tightening border security with Mexico. I don't see Obama doing much in the way of reform there... but I DO see him willingly pandering to the Hispanic population in order to gain their votes. With all questionable faux pas against whites, he's definitely going to be needing another leg to stand on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine

Obama is the best candidate for the endorsement. One of the few things I like about Hilary is her commitment to tightening border security with Mexico. I don't see Obama doing much in the way of reform there... but I DO see him willingly pandering to the Hispanic population in order to gain their votes. With all questionable faux pas against whites, he's definitely going to be needing another leg to stand on.

---

Did you see the latest? Looks like he just lost the endorsement --- called Richardson a "typical Mexican."




Joking! Just something I made up to amuse myself....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Did you see the latest? Looks like he just lost the endorsement --- called Richardson a "typical Mexican."




Joking! Just something I made up to amuse myself....

---

Haha, damn... had you been serious, that would have been the icing on the cake for this thread and topic! :D

And by all means, please keep amusing yourself... you amuse many others in the process! :thumbsup: