So if he can’t get Iran and the Norks to give up theirs he’ll make us give up ours?
i’d like to cut 40% of his...NEVER MIND!
Will he clean the knife afterwards?
The big question is which country will he give them to? Mean while he allows muslim countries to develop their. Will this country of ours ever learn. IMPEACHMENT
When can we cut Obambi by 40%? HE MUST GO!
Stupid. And if he was going to do this anyway, why didn’t he at least get something for it from Russia or something? The guy sucks at negotiating.
this could catch on....
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/i-like-the-following-part-the-best-dick-g/
A traitor inside the White House. Used to be the stuff of thriller movies and bestseller novels. Today it is real. And no one’s doing a thriller movie about it.
The Suicidal-in-Chief continues on his merry way! Sheer and utter insanity!
and of course, the whole world knows that our nuclear stockpile is 5,113 warheads . . . since he told them in may. I guess this is why, so he can get another nobel peace prize for cutting a certain percentage of his country’s entire inventory of warheads.
If I posted what I’m thinking, I’d not only be banned, the Secret Service would be pounding on my door!!!!!!!
OK, 40% because it would be too obvious if he got rid of all defenses at once.
Uh oh. We’re going to need those nukes to defend our Muslim Socialist Workers’ Paradise against the capitalist pigs who want to steal the fruits of our labor.
Many years ago on 60 Minutes (yes I know) they interviewed a nuclear weapons designer.
Paraphrased, she said “I’m often asked what good comes from having these weapons? We don’t use them so what’s the point of having them?
Her reply was “We use them everyday. They sit there on a shelf and scare people.”
Sublime.
Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
The list, ping
Do things like this even get a thirty second mention from the MSM, or are Freepers and a few like minded souls the only ones who know?
Also, is this really a unilateral decision for the POTUS alone? We do have two other branches of government, plus some Joint Chiefs. Do any of them get a say so?