First time visitor? Learn more.

Exigencies of The Cold War: The Falkland Islands

by coldwarrior ( 161 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Argentina, Cold War, History, Open thread, UK at April 3rd, 2012 - 5:00 pm

New documents have been released that explain the Reagan White House’s actions during the Falkland Island War. Mr O’Sullivan breaks down the details:

 

From NRO:

 

The Significant ‘Little War’

‘Miles and miles of bugger all” was the succinct judgment of Sir Denis Thatcher on the Falkland Islands, delivered during his first and only visit there. It was also the conventional wisdom 30 years ago when, on April 2, 1982, Argentinean special forces landed at Port Stanley, defeated its British marine defenders — wounding one NCO for the loss of three Argentinean lives — and inflicted a deep political humiliation on the British, notably on Sir Denis’s wife, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

In 1982, very few people believed that the Atlantic around the islands had substantial economic value, let alone major energy reserves. The British Foreign Office had been trying hard to persuade the islanders to accept a gradual transfer of sovereignty to Argentina for more than a decade. And a recent British defense review had withdrawn the icebreaker, HMS Endurance, from the islands, indicating that London had a low estimate of their strategic importance.

Yet only three days after Argentina seized the islands by military force, the Thatcher government dispatched a small armada of warships, planes, and troops south in order to retake them.

It was this discrepancy between the small importance of the prize and the strenuous effort needed to win it that shaped the early American (and European) reactions to the Falklands War. Columnists compared it to a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta or cast it as a final spasm of Victorian jingoism. Jorge Luis Borges, the distinguished Argentinean writer, famously put this thought best: The dispute was “two bald men fighting over a comb.”

Thirty years later, the war looks very different — and much more significant. As the archives disgorge their information treasure, we can see more clearly both its real significance and how shrewdly and quickly policy-makers grasped this and responded to it. A vast tranche of documents from the Reagan administration has recently been declassified. As I reported three weeks ago, the Margaret Thatcher Foundation in Cambridge has posted a selection of these documents about Anglo-American relations in full with no intelligence redacted on its website. Today it has put up a further series of such documents relating to the Falklands War, including a confidential briefing to congressmen on the war by Secretary of State Alexander Haig, military assessments of both sides by the Central Intelligence Agency, and a Top Secret account of a meeting of the National Security Council chaired by Reagan to determine whether and how to “tilt” U.S. policy one month into the war.

My overall take on the significance and outcome of what these documents reveal, especially about the NSC meeting, is available in an article I wrote for last Saturday’s weekend Wall Street Journal. In brief, however:

  1. Reagan stuck to a distinction between sovereignty over the Falklands (on which Washington was neutral) and armed aggression to settle the question (on which Washington sided with Britain);
  2. Within that distinction he allowed his Cabinet secretaries considerable leeway to pursue their own interpretations of U.S. policy;
  3. Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger and CIA Deputy Director Bobby Inman used that leeway to push military and intelligence aid to Britain, and Secretary of State Haig used it to push Britain toward diplomatic concessions that amounted, in his own account to the NSC, to “camouflaged transfer of sovereignty.”

Haig’s proposals for British concessions were known at the time: withdrawal by both sides, some kind of interim international administration of the islands, and Anglo-Argentinean negotiations over sovereignty. What is surprising in the NSC document is the degree to which Haig realized this would amount to an Argentinean victory — and thus a victory for the armed aggression that Reagan had clearly condemned.

What explains this “tilt” toward Argentina on Haig’s part — especially since the NSC meeting was convened to arrange a tilt toward Britain after Argentina had turned down the first tranche of Haig’s proposals? And what explains the tilt towards Britain on the part of Weinberger and Inman?

This second question is relatively easy to answer: Weinberger and Inman plainly thought that the relationship with Britain — a NATO ally with extremely close military, diplomatic, intelligence, and (under Reagan and Thatcher) political ties — had advantages that outweighed any possible gain from showing favor to Argentina or any possible risk from showing disfavor. Under Weinberger, the Pentagon was already giving substantial military aid to British forces — and had been since the day the British task force headed south.

Inman’s most decisive intervention in the NSC debate (apart from an accurate military appreciation of the forces on both sides) was to warn against intelligence leaks on Falklands matters. The CIA took this very seriously indeed. Two months later, Inman’s boss, William Casey, sent out a stern letter to senior officials administration-wide to repeat Inman’s warning. But what leaks were they talking about? On April 15, 1982, the New York Times had published a piece headlined “U.S. Providing British with Wide Range of Intelligence.” Subsequently, the Argentineans had changed their codes, making it harder for the CIA to read their traffic.

This falls short of proof that the U.S. was giving MI6 Argentina’s encrypted conversations. But it caused Haig to worry that his assurances to the contrary given to Buenos Aires might look hypocritical and dishonest. And, accurate or not, it might have thrown an unwelcome light (or inconvenient wrench) onto CIA-MI6 cooperation.

About Haig’s motives, we get a partial explanation in the NSC debate of why some modest tilt to Argentina might be necessary. Haig addressed — and was questioned on — three important points: Were there any risks to the lives of U.S. citizens in Argentina from the course of the war? Were there any risks of an Argentinean default that might damage U.S. banks, American investments, or the property of American expatriates? Was there a risk that the Argentinean junta might fall, and, if so, what kind of regime would replace it? A fourth point — what were the wider risks of the conflict to the U.S. throughout Latin America? — came up frequently elsewhere.

These were all reasonable anxieties, and there was a fair measure of agreement in the meeting on them. The first danger was taken most seriously. Rightly so: There were 16,000 Americans in Argentina, and the seizure of the Teheran embassy had taken place only three years earlier. Thus the Argentinean government was requested to protect expatriates (it readily agreed), and instructions were sent to the U.S. embassy to prepare evacuation plans for them.

A State Department briefing paper analyzing the economic and financial risks very thoroughly concluded, unsurprisingly, that the banks were unlikely to force Argentina into a default from which they would suffer most. Similarly it argued that almost all the available economic sanctions would damage Argentina only slightly and lose American companies market share. So modest economic measures, a suspension of U.S. arms sales to Argentina, and a White House statement blaming Buenos Aires for the breakdown of negotiations — all largely symbolic actions — were proposed by State and, later, adopted by the NSC meeting.

The main concern, rooted in traditional strategy, was the third: What would happen if the junta fell from power? This question was more important than it seemed (and, arguably, more important than it should have been) because the U.S. was getting discreet assistance from Argentina in its one of its major priorities: Central American policy. Haig argued that if the junta fell, it would probably be replaced by a left-wing, Perónist government hostile to U.S. policy across the board. That being so, the U.S. had an incentive to arrange concessions for the junta, if only to save its face.

Finally, both State and the CIA at different times studied the impact of U.S. policy toward the Falklands on Washington’s relations with the rest of Latin America. They concluded that provided that the U.S. was not seen to assist Britain militarily, the fallout would be modest.

Reading the briefing papers and other documents around the NSC meeting, however, one gets the impression that the foreign-policy bureaucracy in the Reagan administration wanted a conclusion to the Falklands War that punished Argentina for its armed aggression but also set in train a diplomatic process for gradually transferring Falklands sovereignty from London to Buenos Aires. This is nowhere stated clearly — except when Haig is speaking. The bureaucrats hint at their conclusions in Roman; Haig presents them to the NSC in bold italics.

There’s a reason: Haig is a man in a hurry. Power is slipping from his grasp. Reagan is not prepared to give him the dominance he demands over foreign policy. He cannot get the president even to fire unruly trespassers on his bureaucratic turf such as U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. He needs a victory and he needs it soon. If Haig can prevent a war by diplomatic mediation, he will be irremovable — and, maybe too, get the Nobel Prize!

But he can’t — and soon he is gone.

This was probably inevitable. Haig’s (and the bureaucrats’) willingness to see a transfer of sovereignty, however camouflaged, was not really consistent with the distinction that Reagan articulated repeatedly as the basis of U.S. policy throughout the crisis: neutral on sovereignty but opposed to military aggression. If aggression leads to a transfer of sovereignty, then it has been not punished but rewarded. And if aggression is to be punished, then moral and material assistance to the British campaign to recover the islands was the logical outcome. That is what happened — and, of course, U.S. aid was a significant factor in the British victory.

What happened afterwards in Latin America contradicted the fears of Haig and those who wanted a pro-Argentina tilt more or less completely. The junta fell, but a reasonably stable and responsible Argentinean government replaced it. There were riots in Buenos Aires, but they targeted the junta rather than American citizens. There was no Argentinean default for another 19 years. The country’s return to democracy set an example that was followed over time by almost the whole of Latin America (including Nicaragua and El Salvador).

Developments elsewhere tended to confirm the judgments of Weinberger, Inman, and those who thought that the U.S. had no real alternative but to support its closest ally. Britain received a boost from its victory — the so-called “Falklands Effect” — that translated into a wider revival of economic success and national self-confidence. It also had a stiffening effect on Western morale more generally: It showed retreat was not inevitable. Thatcher personally established a dominant position in British politics that lasted almost another decade. And Reagan had a grateful and reliable partner for the various foreign-policy struggles that lay ahead. In retrospect this particular tilt seems commonsense.

Now the Falklands have discovered oil — which threatens to reignite the Anglo-Argentinean conflict.

These documents from 30 years ago are timely, and they suggest three lessons for current U.S. policy-makers from this “little war.” First, if you are going to be neutral on Falklands sovereignty, as the policy has been for many years, be absolutely clear that you are not neutral on the use of military force. Wishful thinkers in Buenos Aires can be hard of hearing.

Second, even little wars bring great grief. At the start, Washington saw it all as comic opera or jingoistic fantasy. By the end, the Falklands War was a vast diversion for the administration. It helped to bring down a secretary of state and it imposed on the U.S. a painful choice between different allies.

Third, decisions have consequences. If U.S. policy had tilted towards the wrong side on the Falklands, that tilt would almost certainly have aborted partnerships and policies that were later vital in winning the Cold War. Imagine that.

 

From WSJ:


How the U.S. Almost Betrayed Britain

Alexander Haig wanted Reagan to side with the Argentines over the Falklands, newly released papers show

Thirty years ago this Monday, Argentine marines invaded the Falkland Islands, captured its British defenders and declared the islands to be Argentine territory: Las Malvinas. Britain dispatched a naval “task force” to regain them less than a week later. The Falklands War had begun.

According to newly released documents from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., the U.S. almost took sides against its most important ally, driven by the diplomatic maneuvering of Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

It’s already a matter of record that, at first, Washington ostentatiously refused to take sides. Secretary Haig embarked on energetic shuttle diplomacy between Buenos Aires and London to craft a settlement. One month after the landing, the military junta governing Argentina rejected his compromise. The National Security Council met to determine the next stage of U.S. policy.

Thirty years ago the U.K. went to war against Argentina over the Falkland Islands but according to newly released documents from the Reagan Library, the U.S. almost took sides against the U.K. WSJ’s Cassell Bryan-Low reports on the anniversary. Photo: AP

Among the vast cache of documents just released from the Reagan Library are the minutes of an NSC meeting on April 30, 1982. The release is the result of a 2002 request by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, which will post the minutes on its website on Monday. These records are an as-it-happened chronicle of decision-making in the White House. No part has been redacted, despite significant intelligence content.

The most striking revelation from the meeting is the degree to which Haig’s compromise favored the Argentines. The minutes are quite clear on this point: Haig “then described the elements of the American plan which in effect would give ultimate sovereignty to Argentina but under evolutionary conditions which the Islanders could ultimately accept.”

It’s far from clear, however, that the islanders could or would accept Argentine sovereignty, nor that Haig was really solicitous of their interests. He had recently told U.S. congressmen that the principle of “self-determination” did not really apply to them. And an off-color joke of his about their sexual practices underlined his lack of sympathy.

But Haig was baffled and frustrated by the reaction of the junta: “Our proposals, in fact, are a camouflaged transfer of sovereignty, and the Argentine foreign minister knows this, but the junta will not accept it.” This seemingly confirms some Brits’ long-standing suspicion that the U.S. was “tilting” toward Buenos Aires throughout the war. But the minutes contradict this in two ways.

First, the NSC was meeting to discuss and, in the event, to decide on a “tilt” toward the British. At this stage the tilt was more symbolic than practical; a White House statement blamed Buenos Aires for the breakdown of negotiations—which, anyway, were to resume shortly with the Peruvian foreign minister offering a rehash of Haig’s ideas (“Haig in a poncho” to the Brits).

Second, Haig’s main supporter in the meeting was U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, usually his nemesis. More powerful players—Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Central Intelligence Agency deputy chief Bobby Inman—favored a sharper alignment on the British side. But since things were going their way, they said little.

President Reagan presided over this discussion with a kind of calm detachment. He had outlined a fairly clear U.S. position from the start of the crisis: neutrality over which country had sovereignty over the Falklands but strong opposition to settling the question by military aggression. He stuck to it thereafter.

The British would have preferred U.S. support on both points, but what they got was substantial—American endorsement of a principle that allowed Washington to give them strong material support for a military campaign that faced steep uphill odds even then.

Having established this broad principle, Reagan then allowed his cabinet secretaries large leeway in interpreting it. Indeed, Weinberger and Haig left this NSC meeting with its approval of further installments both of military aid and of shuttle diplomacy.

Three weeks later, however, British troops would land at San Carlos Bay. The modest and largely public U.S. “tilt” toward Britain at this meeting became more pronounced in practice as diplomacy faded and the soldiers decided the outcome on the ground. Military aid became Washington’s most significant contribution to the war.

Thatcher’s combination of judgment and steel nerves stood the test. Twice she accepted compromise proposals along lines that would have ended her career if the junta had accepted them. But she calculated (or gambled) throughout that the junta would never agree to the interim measure of withdrawing its troops from the islands. She proved to be right—and Britain won.

Though only some at the NSC that day wanted a British victory, almost everyone gained from it. The junta fell, free elections were held in 1983 and Argentina embarked on a rare period of political and economic stability that lasted almost two decades. None of the consequences feared at the NSC meeting actually materialized.

Not least among the beneficiaries were Reagan and Thatcher. She achieved dominance over the British political scene that lasted until the month of her dramatic downfall. Reagan had his main overseas partner in the Cold War sustained and strengthened for the long struggle ahead. The wisdom of the tilt to Britain looks obvious only in retrospect—which is why Weinberger and Inman deserve our respect for seeing it at the time.

—Mr. O’Sullivan is the author of “The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World.”

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

161 Responses to “Exigencies of The Cold War: The Falkland Islands”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | April 3, 2012 5:18 pm

    What an interesting story of Reagan leading with his gut and Thatcher exhibiting her legendary resolve. These giants will make our current midgets even more diminutive as time passes.


  2. 2 | April 3, 2012 5:40 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    It seems like a lifetime ago.


  3. 3 | April 3, 2012 5:52 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    It seems like a lifetime ago.

    I’m 58 and the 80s were my absolute favorite decade; Reagan was President, I was 30 at my most productive and was being well paid for it, I got married in ’82, i has a sweet Corvette with an L82 engine, the country was chugging and MTV was actually music television instead of whatever it is now. Those were heady days, indeed.


  4. Speranza
    4 | April 3, 2012 5:59 pm

    I liked the 70′s . Nothing in the country was working and NYC was particularly in deep shit, but in hindsight I did like the edge. Wouldn’t want to go back to those days though.

    OT -- Call me old fashioned but I still hate Chris Brown for his music.


  5. Speranza
    5 | April 3, 2012 6:01 pm

    Reagan,Churchill and Thatcher were exceptions -- most British and American leaders are more like Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Ford, Clement Attlee, Ted Heath, James Callaghan, David Cameron, and Gordon Brown.

    Even though on all other issues he was terrible, I admire Tony Blair for being the staunch ally that he was in the war.


  6. Speranza
    6 | April 3, 2012 6:03 pm

    Shame on Alexander Haig.


  7. 7 | April 3, 2012 6:24 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Shame on Alexander Haig.

    God rest his soul, Haig was a borderline lunatic. Why Reagan relied on him in the first place is proof that Reagan wasn’t infallible.


  8. Speranza
    8 | April 3, 2012 6:31 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    God rest his soul, Haig was a borderline lunatic. Why Reagan relied on him in the first place is proof that Reagan wasn’t infallible.

    No humans or politicians are -- that is why I go nuts when I see people on our side becoming Palinistas or on the other side ObamaZombies.


  9. huckfunn
    9 | April 3, 2012 6:32 pm

    This is pretty weird. Actual picture of a dog driving a car.


  10. buzzsawmonkey
    10 | April 3, 2012 6:39 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Hey, Rodan: While you’re dumping on some of the GOP’s lesser moons saying stupid things about Hispanics, check out this bit of pandering by Debbie Wassermann Schultz. The sound recording is hilarious.


  11. Speranza
    11 | April 3, 2012 6:41 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Hey, Rodan: While you’re dumping on some of the GOP’s lesser moons saying stupid things about Hispanics, check out this bit of pandering by Debbie Wassermann Schultz. The sound recording is hilarious.

    It’s a given that she’s a blithering idiot -- just take a look at her hair-do.


  12. buzzsawmonkey
    12 | April 3, 2012 6:46 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    It’s a given that she’s a blithering idiot – just take a look at her hair-do.

    It’s easy for her to get ready in the mornings; just a quick claw with a rake, and she’s good to go.


  13. 13 | April 3, 2012 6:50 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    MacDuff wrote:

    God rest his soul, Haig was a borderline lunatic. Why Reagan relied on him in the first place is proof that Reagan wasn’t infallible.

    No humans or politicians are – that is why I go nuts when I see people on our side becoming Palinistas or on the other side ObamaZombies.

    Agreed. Cults of personality are just as dangerous on the Right as the Left.


  14. 14 | April 3, 2012 6:53 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Hey, Rodan: While you’re dumping on some of the GOP’s lesser moons saying stupid things about Hispanics, check out this bit of pandering by Debbie Wassermann Schultz. The sound recording is hilarious.

    It’s a given that she’s a blithering idiot – just take a look at her hair-do.

    I imagine she’s what Shirley Temple would look like if she were possessed by Satan.


  15. RIX
    15 | April 3, 2012 7:01 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    I imagine she’s what Shirley Temple would look like if she were possessed by Satan

    Debbie Wasserman Schlutz is the reason that God created
    twin beds.


  16. Speranza
    16 | April 3, 2012 7:08 pm

    You would think with the great dental plan congressmen have she would do something abut her teeth. And I am serious not snarky.


  17. buzzsawmonkey
    17 | April 3, 2012 7:09 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Debbie Wasserman Schlutz is the reason that God created
    twin beds.

    I thought she was the reason that magicians came up with the idea of sawing a woman in half.


  18. RIX
    18 | April 3, 2012 7:16 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    Debbie Wasserman Schlutz is the reason that God created
    twin beds.
    I thought she was the reason that magicians came up with the idea of sawing a woman in half.

    I think that in her case both theories are applicable.
    The fact that she has a hyphenated name tells me that there
    is a Mr. Schultz.
    The guy is in need of a rescue.


  19. Lily
    19 | April 3, 2012 7:17 pm
    Obama campaign video claiming ‘it’s on’ in second term taken down

    The Obama campaign apparently has taken down a web video that featured an actress touting the fact the incumbent president wouldn’t “have to worry” about re-election in a second term.

    The video on the Obama campaign site was first reported on Tuesday by a Daily Caller article. The video was subsequently unavailable on the site.

    It follows an incident last week in which President Obama was overheard telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he’d have “more flexibility” on missile defense and other issues after the election.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/obama-campaign-video-claiming-its-on-in-second-term-taken-down/#ixzz1r1REB2du


  20. Lily
    20 | April 3, 2012 7:20 pm

    Court: Think We Can’t Overturn Laws?

    Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1SD616y


  21. Da_Beerfreak
    21 | April 3, 2012 7:26 pm

    he only thing that is greater then Baby Doc Baraq’s arrogance is his ignorance. :twisted:


  22. brookly red
    22 | April 3, 2012 7:26 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Court: Think We Can’t Overturn Laws?

    Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1SD616y

    yeah pride cometh before the fall…


  23. brookly red
    23 | April 3, 2012 7:27 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    he only thing that is greater then Baby Doc Baraq’s arrogance is his ignorance.

    maybe they will want to take a closer look at some of his other bright ideas too…


  24. RIX
    24 | April 3, 2012 7:28 pm

    @ Lily:
    Obama has publicly attacked the Court at least
    twice.
    If he thinks that the court can’t overturn a law
    by “duly elected representatives”, why doesn’t he
    give up his veto power?
    He has no respect for the Constitution , or separation
    of powers. Actually he doesn’t respect this country.


  25. buzzsawmonkey
    25 | April 3, 2012 7:28 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    yeah pride cometh before the fall…

    Ain’t that the truth; it’s only April and look at how arrogant the Pipsqueak-in-Chief is being.


  26. buzzsawmonkey
    26 | April 3, 2012 7:31 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Obama has publicly attacked the Court at least
    twice.

    The problem is that he commands the federal police forces as well as the armed forces. The Supreme Court and the Congress do not.

    Thus, if he simply says, “I refuse to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling,” and starts unilaterally implementing Obamacare through executive orders with the Department of Health and Human Services, who’s to stop him?


  27. brookly red
    27 | April 3, 2012 7:31 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    brookly red wrote:

    yeah pride cometh before the fall…

    Ain’t that the truth; it’s only April and look at how arrogant the Pipsqueak-in-Chief is being.

    he knows that he was placed there by powerful people that want to take over the health care business by fiat… he also knows if he messes it up those same people will find him no longer useful.


  28. Lily
    28 | April 3, 2012 7:32 pm

    Good grief is the GOP guilty of everything according to obamma?

    Obama Warns GOP Budget Would Make Weather Prediction Less Accurate

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/03/obama_warns_gop_budget_would_make_weather_prediction_less_accurate.html


  29. brookly red
    29 | April 3, 2012 7:32 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The problem is that he commands the federal police forces as well as the armed forces. The Supreme Court and the Congress do not.

    Thus, if he simply says, “I refuse to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling,” and starts unilaterally implementing Obamacare through executive orders with the Department of Health and Human Services, who’s to stop him?

    He can implement all he wants, only congress can fund.


  30. Lily
    30 | April 3, 2012 7:34 pm

    @ RIX:

    He is so anti-American it eeks from his pores!
    His hubris grows daily!


  31. RIX
    31 | April 3, 2012 7:35 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Thus, if he simply says, “I refuse to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling,” and starts unilaterally implementing Obamacare through executive orders with the Department of Health and Human Services, who’s to stop him?

    In all honesty, I think that it is at least even
    money that he will do that.
    It would be one outrageous constitutional crisis,
    but that wouldn’t stop him.


  32. brookly red
    32 | April 3, 2012 7:36 pm

    RIX wrote:

    It would be one outrageous constitutional crisis,
    but that wouldn’t stop him.

    kinda looks like he wants one…


  33. Lily
    33 | April 3, 2012 7:36 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    he only thing that is greater then Baby Doc Baraq’s arrogance is his ignorance.

    maybe they will want to take a closer look at some of his other bright ideas too…

    That would be an excellent thing for them to do.


  34. buzzsawmonkey
    34 | April 3, 2012 7:36 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    powerful people that want to take over the health care business by fiat…

    Take over health care? Hell, no—his backers want to impose a crony-communist Union of Soviet States of America.

    Obama was schooled by and backed by Maoists such as Bill Ayers. He and various members of his administration have repeatedly expressed their admiration not only for dictatorship generally but the Chinese model of it, under which there is a Party/crony-capitalist class and everyone else does what they’re told.

    The question is what is going to happen if the Supreme Court slaps down Obamacare; will Obama make a blatant dictatorship move or not?


  35. Lily
    35 | April 3, 2012 7:38 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Thus, if he simply says, “I refuse to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling,” and starts unilaterally implementing Obamacare through executive orders with the Department of Health and Human Services, who’s to stop him?

    In all honesty, I think that it is at least even
    money that he will do that.
    It would be one outrageous constitutional crisis,
    but that wouldn’t stop him.

    I honestly think he will do this too! Excellent time for him to show his true colors right before the elections. He has been showing his true colors like a damn peacock lately and I’m sitting here thinking please carry on!!!! The people are starting to notice.


  36. brookly red
    36 | April 3, 2012 7:39 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The question is what is going to happen if the Supreme Court slaps down Obamacare; will Obama make a blatant dictatorship move or not?

    I am inclined to think that may have been the endgame all along.


  37. buzzsawmonkey
    37 | April 3, 2012 7:39 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    He can implement all he wants, only congress can fund.

    HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

    We are in our third year without a budget from Congress. The entire Obama presidency has been run on the cuff without any legitimate funding—and you’re telling me “only Congress can fund?”

    If someone blatantly ignores a Supreme Court ruling on his own whim, do you think for a minute that he’s going to pay attention to what Congress votes on?


  38. Lily
    38 | April 3, 2012 7:41 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Like CW said the other night. American’s elected the ‘Weather Underground’ for president.


  39. buzzsawmonkey
    39 | April 3, 2012 7:41 pm

    We are one “gutsy call” away from a Chavez dictatorship. That we are not there yet is probably due only to Obama’s natural cowardice and the countervailing influence of one or two vestigial Americans in his inner circle.


  40. RIX
    40 | April 3, 2012 7:41 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ RIX:
    He is so anti-American it eeks from his pores!
    His hubris grows daily!

    Yet the MSM just loves him & they are in complete
    denial about the real nature of the critter.
    BHO picked a war with the Church & when the time is
    right he will break bad on his friends in the Media.
    That is what Marxists do.


  41. buzzsawmonkey
    41 | April 3, 2012 7:42 pm

    Lily wrote:

    American’s elected the ‘Weather Underground’ for president.

    I said that in 2008.


  42. Lily
    42 | April 3, 2012 7:43 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    He has been going around Congress like they aren’t even there.
    What were his words again, “I wish the United States were more like China so I could get more things done.”


  43. Lily
    43 | April 3, 2012 7:44 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I will refer to you concerning that comment from now on! :)


  44. Poteen
    44 | April 3, 2012 7:44 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The question is what is going to happen if the Supreme Court slaps down Obamacare; will Obama make a blatant dictatorship move or not?

    He’d be the 2nd Democrat President in a row to face impeachment.
    Or worse.
    How many military and police are Marxists?


  45. brookly red
    45 | April 3, 2012 7:44 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    If someone blatantly ignores a Supreme Court ruling on his own whim, do you think for a minute that he’s going to pay attention to what Congress votes on?

    sooner or later even troops need to get paid…


  46. Lily
    46 | April 3, 2012 7:45 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Lily wrote:

    @ RIX:
    He is so anti-American it eeks from his pores!
    His hubris grows daily!

    Yet the MSM just loves him & they are in complete
    denial about the real nature of the critter.
    BHO picked a war with the Church & when the time is
    right he will break bad on his friends in the Media.
    That is what Marxists do.

    Couldn’t agree more. All the msm is to him right now are useful tools.
    And they are buying into everything he says.


  47. Lily
    47 | April 3, 2012 7:46 pm

    @ Poteen:

    As far as I know the Sheriff’s department around here are very conservative in their politic’s even down to the deputies.


  48. brookly red
    48 | April 3, 2012 7:47 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    We are one “gutsy call” away from a Chavez dictatorship. That we are not there yet is probably due only to Obama’s natural cowardice and the countervailing influence of one or two vestigial Americans in his inner circle.

    and the fact that the military does not and will not support him…


  49. Dolphin
    49 | April 3, 2012 7:47 pm

    @ Speranza:
    Maybe she will end up looking like Helen Thomas in her old age. She is ugly on the inside too. I cannot stand her.


  50. RIX
    50 | April 3, 2012 7:47 pm

    @ Lily:

    I honestly think he will do this too! Excellent time for him to show his true colors right before the elections. He has been showing his true colors like a damn peacock lately and I’m sitting here thinking please carry on!!!! The people are starting to notice

    That does bother me that he is being so obvious.
    It tells me that he is really confident that he will
    be reelected.
    If Romney has a testostrone attack & defeats him, there
    will be blood in the streets imo.
    I would strongly advise anybody in an urban area to skip
    work for at least the day after.


  51. 51 | April 3, 2012 7:49 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    Obama has publicly attacked the Court at least
    twice.
    The problem is that he commands the federal police forces as well as the armed forces. The Supreme Court and the Congress do not.
    Thus, if he simply says, “I refuse to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling,” and starts unilaterally implementing Obamacare through executive orders with the Department of Health and Human Services, who’s to stop him?

    He may “Command” the Federal Police, but the judiciary commands the United States Marshall’s. When a Federal Judge issues an arrest warrant, it is the US Marshall’s who execute that warrant. Way back in the early days of this country President Andrew Jackson bullied the SCOTUS with that exact threat once, the SCOTUS made damned sure that no future POTUS would be able to do that again, and hence the birth of the United States Marshall’s office.


  52. buzzsawmonkey
    52 | April 3, 2012 7:51 pm

    Poteen wrote:

    How many military and police are Marxists?

    How many military and police are willing to break a lifetime habit and buck the chain of command?

    How many military and police might be attracted by the enhanced status and importance they might enjoy under a repressive regime?

    How many people might be worried that refusing to go along with a blatantly illegal Presidential usurpation might trigger the race war he and his Attorney General have been laying the groundwork for—or mean that they would be looking down the business end of the vast armory of weapons that Homeland Security is currently laying in?

    Apropos of that last—remember when Obama said during the last campaign that we needed “a domestic security force as well-armed as our military?” Well, he may be readying the OWS idiots and the racist flash mob kids as his schlock troops—the domestic equivalent of those kids the Iranians used to clear minefields in the Iran-Iraq war—but it would not surprise me if he were readying a Homeland Security/TSA force for his domestic security initiative. And if he’s got a bunch of chain-of-command troops, however green, that clear chain of command will give them a huge advantage over troops or police who are loyal to America but acting on their own.


  53. Buckeye Abroad
    53 | April 3, 2012 7:51 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The question is what is going to happen if the Supreme Court slaps down Obamacare; will Obama make a blatant dictatorship move or not?

    I am inclined to think that may have been the endgame all along.

    Me thinks I would be surprised by the number of personal acquintances who would be supportive. I hope he goes for it. Once the mask drops we can all stop pretending and get the blood bath over with.


  54. Speranza
    54 | April 3, 2012 7:52 pm

    Dolphin wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Maybe she will end up looking like Helen Thomas in her old age. She is ugly on the inside too. I cannot stand her.

    Helen Thomas just won a Palestinian Journalism Award -- now that’s shocking. /


  55. RIX
    55 | April 3, 2012 7:52 pm

    I will return to Obama bashing after an observation.
    I am watching the pregame for the NCAA Womens Champion-
    ship between Notre Dame & Baylor.
    I am having an Imus moment, the Baylor girls seem like
    a bad ass street gang & the Notre Dame girls seem like
    nice kids.
    I would advise lots of outside jumpers & watch your back.


  56. Speranza
    56 | April 3, 2012 7:53 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Agreed. Cults of personality are just as dangerous on the Right as the Left.

    I tell that to people here and on Hot Air that every day and I get a lot of nasty remarks directed back at me for it but I don’t care.


  57. brookly red
    57 | April 3, 2012 7:54 pm

    RIX wrote:

    If Romney has a testostrone attack & defeats him, there
    will be blood in the streets imo.
    I would strongly advise anybody in an urban area to skip
    work for at least the day after.

    if they have work to skip… a minor detail that


  58. Lily
    58 | April 3, 2012 7:54 pm

    @ RIX:

    He has been over-confident on a lot of things lately. Which is of some concern. If he loses he will try to take the country down with him. I have no doubt in that. The bold EO,the over confidence of the obamacare passing and his screed against the supreme court, the deliberate de-railing of the pipeline, the demonizing of the oil companies, class-warfare, race-warfare, he is in contempt of court concerning the oil leases, the shutting down of coal plants and coal mines the list is so long it is mind-boggling!


  59. NoThreat2U
    59 | April 3, 2012 7:55 pm

    I am all out of smokes and trying my damnedest not to buy a pack.


  60. Dolphin
    60 | April 3, 2012 7:56 pm

    @ Speranza:
    I saw that. Disgusting.

    Spit!


  61. brookly red
    61 | April 3, 2012 7:58 pm

    Lily wrote:

    He has been over-confident on a lot of things lately. Which is of some concern. If he loses he will try to take the country down with him. I have no doubt in that. The bold EO,the over confidence of the obamacare passing and his screed against the supreme court, the deliberate de-railing of the pipeline, the demonizing of the oil companies, class-warfare, race-warfare, he is in contempt of court concerning the oil leases, the shutting down of coal plants and coal mines the list is so long it is mind-boggling!

    as opposed to if he wins… no I think he is over confident because it’s rigged.


  62. Da_Beerfreak
    62 | April 3, 2012 7:58 pm

    The DHS has placed orders for over 600 million rounds of handgun and rifle ammo. This can not bode well for the Country.

    450,000,000 rounds of .40 cal
    125,000,000 rounds of .223 cal

    What purchase orders for guns and ammo haven’t we heard of yet?? :shock:


  63. buzzsawmonkey
    63 | April 3, 2012 7:59 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Yes; see the latter part of my #52 above.


  64. RIX
    64 | April 3, 2012 8:00 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    How many military and police are willing to break a lifetime habit and buck the chain of command?

    That’s the money question. Where will the military be,
    with the people or the regime?
    High ranking military officers are political animals.
    Our best seem to top out at Lt. Colonel


  65. buzzsawmonkey
    65 | April 3, 2012 8:00 pm

    Later, maybe.


  66. brookly red
    66 | April 3, 2012 8:01 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:

    as opposed to if he wins… no I think he is over confident because it’s rigged.

    and this is just a small sample… http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/special-prosecutor-appointed-in-2008-presidential-election-fraud-case/?test=latestnews


  67. Lily
    67 | April 3, 2012 8:02 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Just like in 2008 it was rigged. This is why so many states are passing voter ID laws. Which is also why the NAACP went to the United Nations with States are hampering with the ability for minorities to vote by requiring I.D. to vote. Again with the human violation rights.


  68. brookly red
    68 | April 3, 2012 8:03 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    The DHS has placed orders for over 600 million rounds of handgun and rifle ammo. This can not bode well for the Country.

    450,000,000 rounds of .40 cal
    125,000,000 rounds of .223 cal

    What purchase orders for guns and ammo haven’t we heard of yet??

    over the next five years…


  69. Lily
    69 | April 3, 2012 8:03 pm

    @ brookly red:

    I saw that eariler. I wonder if anything will come of it.


  70. Da_Beerfreak
    70 | April 3, 2012 8:04 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    I am all out of smokes and trying my damnedest not to buy a pack.

    Hang in there, all it takes is a couple of days. :grin:

    (Easy for me to say. I quit 10 years ago after 30 years of smoking. :mrgreen: )


  71. buzzsawmonkey
    71 | April 3, 2012 8:05 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Just like in 2008 it was rigged.

    Are you calling Obama a “rigger?” That must be a dogwhistle of some kind…


  72. brookly red
    72 | April 3, 2012 8:05 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Just like in 2008 it was rigged. This is why so many states are passing voter ID laws. Which is also why the NAACP went to the United Nations with States are hampering with the ability for minorities to vote by requiring I.D. to vote. Again with the human violation rights.

    look this is the fight of our lives… I have faith in my countrymen and in my God.


  73. Lily
    73 | April 3, 2012 8:06 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    :lol:

    Off to the re-education camps ….. again.
    :shock:


  74. brookly red
    74 | April 3, 2012 8:07 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Lily wrote:

    Just like in 2008 it was rigged.

    Are you calling Obama a “rigger?” That must be a dogwhistle of some kind…

    OH Great… Que the DoJ site shut down in 3…2…1…


  75. NoThreat2U
    75 | April 3, 2012 8:08 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I am trying really hard. Over the past few weeks I have cut back big time. It just doesn’t do anything for me anymore.


  76. Lily
    76 | April 3, 2012 8:08 pm

    @ brookly red:

    So do I. I have to have faith up to the very last moment. I also have noticed that a lot of American’s are really, really not happy with this president, except for the fringe element who view him in god-like statis. He has stepped out of the box too many times lately and stomped on too many toes.


  77. brookly red
    77 | April 3, 2012 8:09 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Off to the re-education camps ….. again.

    those are for people under 25… older than that, well it’s been nice knowing ya


  78. citizen_q
    78 | April 3, 2012 8:10 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    He has been over-confident on a lot of things lately. Which is of some concern. If he loses he will try to take the country down with him. I have no doubt in that. The bold EO,the over confidence of the obamacare passing and his screed against the supreme court, the deliberate de-railing of the pipeline, the demonizing of the oil companies, class-warfare, race-warfare, he is in contempt of court concerning the oil leases, the shutting down of coal plants and coal mines the list is so long it is mind-boggling!
    as opposed to if he wins… no I think he is over confident because it’s rigged.

    I am hoping his over-confidence is bourne of being in a bubble and listening to the in-the-bag MFM. Hopefully he beleives his own hype, and is in for a rude awakening.


  79. Lily
    79 | April 3, 2012 8:12 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:

    Off to the re-education camps ….. again.

    those are for people under 25… older than that, well it’s been nice knowing ya

    Oh great! :shock:
    Age 25 well that ship has sailed a long time ago!


  80. Da_Beerfreak
    80 | April 3, 2012 8:12 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I am trying really hard. Over the past few weeks I have cut back big time. It just doesn’t do anything for me anymore.

    That’s what I did. I cut my smoking down to less then a half a pack a day and than quit.


  81. Lily
    81 | April 3, 2012 8:14 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    He has been over-confident on a lot of things lately. Which is of some concern. If he loses he will try to take the country down with him. I have no doubt in that. The bold EO,the over confidence of the obamacare passing and his screed against the supreme court, the deliberate de-railing of the pipeline, the demonizing of the oil companies, class-warfare, race-warfare, he is in contempt of court concerning the oil leases, the shutting down of coal plants and coal mines the list is so long it is mind-boggling!
    as opposed to if he wins… no I think he is over confident because it’s rigged.

    I am hoping his over-confidence is bourne of being in a bubble and listening to the in-the-bag MFM. Hopefully he beleives his own hype, and is in for a rude awakening.

    He only surrounds himself with yes people. It also appears he does believe in his own hype or other wise he would realize that the American people aren’t buying into his crap he keeps trying to show down our throats.


  82. brookly red
    82 | April 3, 2012 8:14 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    So do I. I have to have faith up to the very last moment. I also have noticed that a lot of American’s are really, really not happy with this president, except for the fringe element who view him in god-like statis. He has stepped out of the box too many times lately and stomped on too many toes.

    when he went against the church it woke a lot of people up…


  83. Lily
    83 | April 3, 2012 8:16 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Yep and I do believe that one will really bite him in the arse.
    For one he wants the Church to bend their knee’s down to him!!!


  84. coldwarrior
    84 | April 3, 2012 8:17 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I am trying really hard. Over the past few weeks I have cut back big time. It just doesn’t do anything for me anymore.

    and THAT is when you know it is time to quit.

    hang in there.


  85. RIX
    85 | April 3, 2012 8:17 pm

    @ brookly red:

    if they have work to skip… a minor detail that

    I suppose that there is always the option
    of joining the Obama civilian defence force.
    Seig Heil!


  86. brookly red
    86 | April 3, 2012 8:18 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    if they have work to skip… a minor detail that

    I suppose that there is always the option
    of joining the Obama civilian defence force.
    Seig Heil! Yo wass up!

    fify


  87. Da_Beerfreak
    87 | April 3, 2012 8:19 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    @ brookly red:
    So do I. I have to have faith up to the very last moment. I also have noticed that a lot of American’s are really, really not happy with this president, except for the fringe element who view him in god-like statis. He has stepped out of the box too many times lately and stomped on too many toes.

    when he went against the church it woke a lot of people up…

    When the Church fight started to run out of steam he had his ‘People’ play the Race Card down in Florida to gin up a new crisis.


  88. NoThreat2U
    88 | April 3, 2012 8:19 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Good for you! I am gonna give it my all!


  89. brookly red
    89 | April 3, 2012 8:20 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Yep and I do believe that one will really bite him in the arse.
    For one he wants the Church to bend their knee’s down to him!!!

    and that has worked out so well other tyrants before him…


  90. NoThreat2U
    90 | April 3, 2012 8:21 pm

    @ coldwarrior:
    That’s what I figured…it was a sign to quit. I think the last pack I had lasted me 3 days.


  91. RIX
    91 | April 3, 2012 8:21 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    When the Church fight started to run out of steam he had his ‘People’ play the Race Card down in Florida to gin up a new crisis

    He is attacking the Church & the Courts.
    This is an old formula that has worked over
    & over.


  92. brookly red
    92 | April 3, 2012 8:23 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    @ brookly red:
    So do I. I have to have faith up to the very last moment. I also have noticed that a lot of American’s are really, really not happy with this president, except for the fringe element who view him in god-like statis. He has stepped out of the box too many times lately and stomped on too many toes.

    when he went against the church it woke a lot of people up…

    When the Church fight started to run out of steam he had his ‘People’ play the Race Card down in Florida to gin up a new crisis.

    You can fool some people sometimes,
    But you can’t fool all the people all the time.
    So now we see the light (what you gonna do?),
    We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah! )

    >Bob Marley


  93. Da_Beerfreak
    93 | April 3, 2012 8:23 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Good for you! I am gonna give it my all!

    Sounds like you’re ready to quit. Don’t believe it when Folks try to tell you how hard it is to quit. It gets easier every day after the first few.


  94. brookly red
    94 | April 3, 2012 8:24 pm

    RIX wrote:

    He is attacking the Church & the Courts.
    This is an old formula that has worked over
    & over.

    but he forgot to disarm the people first…


  95. Lily
    95 | April 3, 2012 8:25 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    He is attacking the Church & the Courts.
    This is an old formula that has worked over
    & over.

    but he forgot to disarm the people first…

    Excellent point. But you have to admit he has tried and failed at that one.


  96. RIX
    96 | April 3, 2012 8:26 pm

    @ NoThreat2U:
    I quit & so will you.
    Beside,we have to be on our feet for BOLF.


  97. Da_Beerfreak
    97 | April 3, 2012 8:26 pm

    @ RIX:
    He’s attacking everything he can and hoping we grow tired and lose count of his many insults against us.


  98. Lily
    98 | April 3, 2012 8:27 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Not to mention if he does actually start coming for peoples guns…guess how many peoples guns will have gotten lost in a boating accident or were lost. ;)


  99. RIX
    99 | April 3, 2012 8:27 pm

    @ brookly red:

    but he forgot to disarm the people first…

    That’s what Fast & Furious was all about.
    They just got caught.


  100. Da_Beerfreak
    100 | April 3, 2012 8:28 pm

    @ brookly red:
    But he can fool all of the Mushrooms and most of the Sheeple all of the time. :evil:


  101. RIX
    101 | April 3, 2012 8:29 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    @ RIX:
    He’s attacking everything he can and hoping we grow tired and lose count of his many insults against us.

    That’s true, at some point he figures that we just get
    numb.


  102. Lily
    102 | April 3, 2012 8:30 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    @ RIX:
    He’s attacking everything he can and hoping we grow tired and lose count of his many insults against us.

    Actually it is having the opposite effect the more he insults us the more people are becoming ‘ANYBODY BUT OBAMA’ mentality. The only ones still in the tank for him are the fringe element and the msm. He is losing even a chunk of his democratic base.


  103. NoThreat2U
    103 | April 3, 2012 8:30 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I have some patches from a prior attempt. Think maybe I should use them just to keep the nicotine leveled out a bit?


  104. NoThreat2U
    104 | April 3, 2012 8:31 pm

    @ RIX:
    Working on it!


  105. Da_Beerfreak
    105 | April 3, 2012 8:31 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:
    @ RIX:
    He’s attacking everything he can and hoping we grow tired and lose count of his many insults against us.

    That’s true, at some point he figures that we just get
    numb.

    He’s trying to start more fires then we can put out.


  106. RIX
    106 | April 3, 2012 8:32 pm

    Later Gators. No room service tonight, I brought in
    a great Deli sandwich.
    I beat da system & stuck to da man!


  107. brookly red
    107 | April 3, 2012 8:33 pm

    RIX wrote:

    That’s what Fast & Furious was all about.
    They just got caught.

    of course. epic fail. I have faith in my countrymen, especially those in uniform, and I have faith in my God. We have seen this all before who are we kidding, this is nothing new. this is why the open borders crowd want to dilute the people & this is why they will fail. once a man tastes freedom he won’t give it up. end of story.


  108. Bumr50
    108 | April 3, 2012 8:33 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Figuratively, of course.

    (Like that idiot could start a fire…)


  109. Lily
    109 | April 3, 2012 8:34 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:
    @ RIX:
    He’s attacking everything he can and hoping we grow tired and lose count of his many insults against us.

    That’s true, at some point he figures that we just get
    numb.

    He’s trying to start more fires then we can put out.

    For some reason I don’t think this will work out the way he envisions it working out.
    The supposedly ‘great uniter’ has become actually the ‘great divider’.
    Not too many people can be happy with this.


  110. RIX
    110 | April 3, 2012 8:34 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    He’s trying to start more fires then we can put out

    2010 was the most important election in my life &
    this next one is even more important.


  111. Da_Beerfreak
    111 | April 3, 2012 8:34 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I have some patches from a prior attempt. Think maybe I should use them just to keep the nicotine leveled out a bit?

    Don’t know. I didn’t use anything but if they help why not try them. Anything is better then smoking. My little sister used gum to help her quit.


  112. Lily
    112 | April 3, 2012 8:35 pm

    @ RIX:

    Late Rix!


  113. Da_Beerfreak
    113 | April 3, 2012 8:37 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    Da_Beerfreak wrote:
    @ RIX:
    He’s attacking everything he can and hoping we grow tired and lose count of his many insults against us.
    That’s true, at some point he figures that we just get
    numb.
    He’s trying to start more fires then we can put out.

    For some reason I don’t think this will work out the way he envisions it working out.
    The supposedly ‘great uniter’ has become actually the ‘great divider’.
    Not too many people can be happy with this.

    Even if he fails, he will still have burned the place to the ground…


  114. Lily
    114 | April 3, 2012 8:37 pm

    @ Lily:

    PIMF…

    *Later Rix!*


  115. NoThreat2U
    115 | April 3, 2012 8:38 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Well if I start feeling homocidal, I will stick on a patch. lol lol


  116. Poteen
    116 | April 3, 2012 8:41 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    How many military and police are willing to break a lifetime habit and buck the chain of command?

    How many military and police might be attracted by the enhanced status and importance they might enjoy under a repressive regime?

    How many people might be worried that refusing to go along with a blatantly illegal Presidential usurpation might trigger the race war he and his Attorney General have been laying the groundwork for—or mean that they would be looking down the business end of the vast armory of weapons that Homeland Security is currently laying in?

    1. vast armory of weapons——— 1st target
    2. How many?—————2nd targets

    I don’t think he’ll even go there but the lefty backlash if/when O-care is struck down may be the catalyst for our second civil war.
    Probably not soon but I think we’re heading into chaos within the next generation or so. As long as so many of those dumb bastards believe the shit they’re being fed, this can’t end any other way than a fight.


  117. Lily
    117 | April 3, 2012 8:42 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    True. Like I have always said bho is going to run a ‘scorched earth’ campaign concerning this election. So far he is proving me right.
    Whether he wins or loses he will have done great damage to our nation.
    But even if he loses we can at least start to repair the damage asap.
    Not to mention he will have ‘branded’ the democratic party so bad I am not sure they will be able to recover unless they stop their march towards socialism.
    But the number 1 thing is to get him out of the White House as soon as possible!!!


  118. Da_Beerfreak
    118 | April 3, 2012 8:42 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Well if I start feeling homocidal, I will stick on a patch. lol lol

    My little sister wanted to know if the urge to rip people’s heads off ever went away… :twisted:

    (Ans: It does. :lol: )


  119. NoThreat2U
    119 | April 3, 2012 8:45 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I will probably just find something else about someone and still be homocidal, nicotine deprevation or not. lol


  120. Da_Beerfreak
    120 | April 3, 2012 8:46 pm

    @ Lily:
    That will only be a start. We really need to get rid of Washington DC and let the States rebuild this Country without the deadweight of DC Town dragging everyone down.


  121. Lily
    121 | April 3, 2012 8:46 pm

    @ Poteen:

    I want to see this abomination of a health-care law (obamacare) struck down by the Supreme Court.


  122. Da_Beerfreak
    122 | April 3, 2012 8:47 pm

    @ NoThreat2U:
    :grin:


  123. Lily
    123 | April 3, 2012 8:48 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    At least it will be a start. We have to start somewhere and I agree with you on the States.


  124. brookly red
    124 | April 3, 2012 8:51 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    That will only be a start. We really need to get rid of Washington DC and let the States rebuild this Country without the deadweight of DC Town dragging everyone down.

    now that is why they bought all of dem bullets


  125. NoThreat2U
    125 | April 3, 2012 8:51 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Signing off for the night. Thanks for the support…I am gonna need it :)


  126. Da_Beerfreak
    126 | April 3, 2012 8:52 pm

    @ NoThreat2U:
    Any time.


  127. brookly red
    127 | April 3, 2012 8:53 pm

    Lily wrote:

    I want to see this abomination of a health-care law (obamacare) struck down by the Supreme Court.

    they know, even the liberal ones, that their credibility is on the line… if they let this one slide it’s over.


  128. Bumr50
    128 | April 3, 2012 8:55 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    dem bullets

    ATTAAAAAAAAACK WAAAAAAAAAAAATCH!


  129. Lily
    129 | April 3, 2012 8:56 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Yep. I hope with bho ‘threatening’ the Supreme Court they will dig in their heels.


  130. brookly red
    130 | April 3, 2012 8:57 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    brookly red wrote:

    dem bullets

    ATTAAAAAAAAACK WAAAAAAAAAAAATCH!

    your cap lock seems to be stuck…


  131. 131 | April 3, 2012 8:57 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    She’s an idiot. She views Villaraigosa as her little pet and he obliges. Fuck her..


  132. Poteen
    132 | April 3, 2012 8:59 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ Poteen:
    I want to see this abomination of a health-care law (obamacare) struck down by the Supreme Court.

    I do too but the fact that it is even a consideration much less passed through Congress makes me pretty cynical. The only question is whether we are the ‘Rebels’ or the Gov’t. It will devolve to conflict.
    The ‘decline’ started 80 years ago and that is about how long it seems to take to reach the ‘fall’.


  133. brookly red
    133 | April 3, 2012 8:59 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Yep. I hope with bho ‘threatening’ the Supreme Court they will dig in their heels.

    hehehe even Kagan… the one thing you can’t do with a lib is trust them. Job fo life? damn skippy


  134. Poteen
    134 | April 3, 2012 9:01 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    She’s an idiot. She views Villaraigosa as her little pet and he obliges. Fuck her..

    Not even with yours./


  135. Canoe Convoy
    135 | April 3, 2012 9:02 pm

    For the British, winning the Falkland Islands war was a big, big deal. Considering Britain’s history over the previous two decades, that victory provided a much needed boost in morale. I find it to be a fascinating short conflict. Plus, I find the Harriers to be fascinating jets.

    It also had the opportunity for the first naval battle since WW 2. Alas, that was not to be.


  136. brookly red
    136 | April 3, 2012 9:03 pm

    @ Rodan:

    wooop wooop da flying lizard be in the house! now I might have to post some jokes :)


  137. 137 | April 3, 2012 9:03 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Ha ha ha, Just mention Charles Johnson! That’s the biggest joke of all!


  138. Bumr50
    138 | April 3, 2012 9:06 pm

    @ brookly red:

    I believe that’s the proper capitalization of that particular phrase.


  139. Lily
    139 | April 3, 2012 9:06 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Well he is great for predicting the future. On whatever issue he backs up you know for sure he will be proven wrong. So if he thinks obamacare will pass the Supreme Court it is a shoe-in that it will not! :lol:


  140. Poteen
    140 | April 3, 2012 9:06 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    It’s easy for her to get ready in the mornings; just a quick claw with a rake, and she’s good to go.

    Hippies, dopers and Weathermen in gov’t weren’t bad enough,,, now we have the punk rockers./


  141. Da_Beerfreak
    141 | April 3, 2012 9:07 pm

    Canoe Convoy wrote:

    For the British, winning the Falkland Islands war was a big, big deal. Considering Britain’s history over the previous two decades, that victory provided a much needed boost in morale. I find it to be a fascinating short conflict. Plus, I find the Harriers to be fascinating jets.
    It also had the opportunity for the first naval battle since WW 2. Alas, that was not to be.

    But it was the first time a nuclear sub got to sink a surface combatant. :twisted:


  142. brookly red
    142 | April 3, 2012 9:07 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    Ha ha ha, Just mention Charles Johnson! That’s the biggest joke of all!

    so CJ walks into a bar….


  143. brookly red
    143 | April 3, 2012 9:09 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Canoe Convoy wrote:

    For the British, winning the Falkland Islands war was a big, big deal. Considering Britain’s history over the previous two decades, that victory provided a much needed boost in morale. I find it to be a fascinating short conflict. Plus, I find the Harriers to be fascinating jets.
    It also had the opportunity for the first naval battle since WW 2. Alas, that was not to be.

    But it was the first time a nuclear sub got to sink a surface combatant.

    yeah. a WWII cruiser


  144. Lily
    144 | April 3, 2012 9:09 pm

    @ Poteen:

    Didn’t the weather underground or Bill Ayers (well they go hand in hand) want to see 25 million Americans die?
    /or did I misunderstand something?


  145. 145 | April 3, 2012 9:10 pm

    @ Lily:

    He’s now a legal expert!


  146. 146 | April 3, 2012 9:12 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Can he even walk?


  147. 147 | April 3, 2012 9:14 pm

    New Thread.


  148. brookly red
    148 | April 3, 2012 9:14 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ Poteen:

    Didn’t the weather underground or Bill Ayers (well they go hand in hand) want to see 25 million Americans die?
    /or did I misunderstand something?

    Ayers, Bin Laden same difference…well maybe not. We did revoke Bin Laden’s voter ID. :P


  149. Lily
    149 | April 3, 2012 9:15 pm

    @ Lily:

    Obama’s buddies….

    Just a Little Genocide

    I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.
    And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

    And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

    I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

    And they were dead serious.Twenty-five million people.

    http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/276377.php


  150. Poteen
    150 | April 3, 2012 9:16 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ Poteen:
    Didn’t the weather underground or Bill Ayers (well they go hand in hand) want to see 25 million Americans die?
    /or did I misunderstand something?

    They talked a LOT of shit but let others pay the price.
    Now they just try to destroy from the inside out and it’s working.


  151. Speranza
    151 | April 3, 2012 9:16 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Didn’t the weather underground or Bill Ayers (well they go hand in hand) want to see 25 million Americans die?

    Yes he did.


  152. Lily
    152 | April 3, 2012 9:17 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Lily:

    He’s now a legal expert!

    He doesn’t know squat about the legal system and it shows horribly with every word he writes about something to do with the legal system.


  153. Lily
    153 | April 3, 2012 9:20 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Lily wrote:

    Didn’t the weather underground or Bill Ayers (well they go hand in hand) want to see 25 million Americans die?

    Yes he did.

    Yet Bill Ayer’s best bud gets elected president????? Good heavens. The media really, really didn’t vett this man properly at all.
    /not like I didn’t know already that this didn’t happen. I just wonder why this isn’t being screamed from the roof tops?


  154. Da_Beerfreak
    154 | April 3, 2012 9:29 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:
    Canoe Convoy wrote:
    For the British, winning the Falkland Islands war was a big, big deal. Considering Britain’s history over the previous two decades, that victory provided a much needed boost in morale. I find it to be a fascinating short conflict. Plus, I find the Harriers to be fascinating jets.
    It also had the opportunity for the first naval battle since WW 2. Alas, that was not to be.
    But it was the first time a nuclear sub got to sink a surface combatant.

    yeah. a WWII cruiser

    Pre WW II. Commissioned: 3 October 1938 as the USS Phoenix (CL-46)


  155. coldwarrior
    155 | April 3, 2012 9:36 pm

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I have some patches from a prior attempt. Think maybe I should use them just to keep the nicotine leveled out a bit?

    No no no no


  156. 156 | April 3, 2012 9:54 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    He is attacking the Church & the Courts.
    This is an old formula that has worked over
    & over.
    but he forgot to disarm the people first…

    No, but he did remember to buy 600 million rds of ammo for the people who will come to take regular citizens away when the time comes.


  157. 157 | April 3, 2012 9:56 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    Didn’t the weather underground or Bill Ayers (well they go hand in hand) want to see 25 million Americans die?
    Yes he did.

    Yup, there is a chapter dedicated to that proposition in William Ayres book “Prairie Fires”…


  158. The Osprey
    158 | April 4, 2012 1:50 am

    brookly red wrote:

    yeah. a WWII cruiser

    Retrofitted with Exocets.

    Maggie was right.


  159. Da_Beerfreak
    159 | April 4, 2012 2:33 am

    The Osprey wrote:

    Retrofitted with Exocets.

    But they forgot the water wings… :oops:


  160. Canoe Convoy
    160 | April 4, 2012 11:49 am

    @ The Osprey:
    It presented quite a challenging decision for Admiral Woodward, as the ARA General Belgrano formed the southwestern leg of a pincer movement. It turns out that the Argentine aircraft carrier, the ARA 25 de Mayo, was off to the British fleets’ northwest, just outside the 200 mile “Exclusion Zone” the British had declared. The 25th of May would’ve been in position to make some sort of attack, had the Brits failed to locate and sink the Belgrano. The carrier could have still attacked, but was plagued by a troublesome catapult and by having almost no wind into which she could’ve launched aircraft. The potential for a 1980s version of the Battle Of Midway existed, but conditions and a cautious British commander, prevented it.


  161. Canoe Convoy
    161 | April 4, 2012 11:50 am

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Don’t underestimate missiles such as the Exocet.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David