No different from the major media left-wing news that ruined the life of a man by accusing him of an attack down south some years ago.

And then the Navy a-12 might not have been as totally cancelled as some think.

According to video which I didn’t know who made with English subtitle in youtube, Su-15 has a better capability of supersonic acceletarion than contemporary fighter except MiG-25/31, even better than advanced generation fighter such as F-15 and F-16. Is that true or just a propaganda?

/The F-15 can be out accelerated by several older U.S. aircraft, depending on altitude so it could very well be.

If aircraft A can go from Mach 1 to 1.2 quicker than aircraft B but at Mach 1.2 aircraft B flies by aircraft A easily the point become moot.

You are so right there is, but then there is also your bit…

Might it not be safe to say that, being an American kid, he studied all the sorts of things you and the racist Boyle studied? I mean, no matter how much you hate and despise the Democrats he must have had the same chances at education as you and him and therefore if you have been taught something at school then there is an excellent chance so did Obama. You and ole racy speculating about your presidents education (or lack of) doesn’t help you in any way except to display your pig ignorance – all I can imagine is the two of you with your slicked hair and your pencil moustache’s (a la Errol Flynn in Gone with the Wind), whipping your African slaves vigorously to generate more dollar profit the old American way.

On this your ignorance is making you look like a blithering idiot.

Obama attended Punaho private prep school– the current tuition is : Tuition for the 2013 – 2014 school year for Kindergarten – Grade 12 is $19,950.
The average price for 4 year private college in Hawaii is $14,694.

It costs 125 dollars to apply.

A cousin of mine who works at the same factory my father retired from would make a little over 40,000 dollars a year without overtime, doing pretty much the same job my father did.
For you to say he had the same chances I did are moronic to the extreme.

I have six mixed blood nephews and nieces, I have forgotten more about race relations than you will ever know so you had best quit making an ass out of yourself while you can.

I’m sure Obama has never studies any WWII history, his high school and university years were probably spent in “black studies” and any history classes were focused on how the bad capitalists exploited the working people. And two weeks after announcing his intention to take the US military to below pre-WWII levels, there isn’t much he can do about Putin.
Obama learned—-(practiced learned)—- politics in Chicago (home of “dirty” American-style politics) and he thinks he’s a tough guy. Mr. Putin is ex-KGB and really is a tough guy.
.

I am not sure what schooling Obama had before his mother sent him to live with his grandmother, because she thought her new husband was too conservative, but he attended a high school in a weathy area of Hawaii as his grandmother was the CEO of the Bank of Hawaii.
I doubt he had black studies in high school but here from The Blaze are some items most do not know about Obama as the TV talking heads did not mention it:

Facts We Know About Barack Obamas Time at Columbia University… article he wrote in the Columbia Sundial magazine.

Human Events summarized the article fairly accurately this way:

“Obama deems the Reagan era defense buildup a “distorted priority” and “dead end track.”

Writing in the midst of the Cold War, Obama was nevertheless oblivious to the threat the Soviet Union then posed to the United States. Indeed, he does not even mention the Soviet Union in his article. Instead, Obama blames — you guessed it — America and its “twisted” world view for the “growing threat of war.”

If only Americans would change their thinking, he argues, the threat would subside. Give re-education a chance.

“Most students at Columbia do not have first hand knowledge of war,” he begins. “Military violence has been a vicarious experience, channeled into our minds through television film, and print . . . We know that wars have occurred, will occur, are occurring, but bringing such experiences down into our hearts and taking continual, tangible steps to prevent war, becomes a difficult task.”

That’s why campus peaceniks are so important. “Two groups on campus, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Students Against Militarism (SAM) work within these mental limits to foster awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war. Though the emphasis of the two groups differ, they share an aversion to current government policy.

“These groups, visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are throwing their weight into shifting America off the dead end track.”[…]

For Obama, the only thing wrong with the nuclear freeze movement is that it’s not ambitious enough. One “is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself.”

Based on this description, it’s fair to conclude that Obama was a supporter of nuclear disarmament and a critic of the Reagan-era Defense buildup. Indeed, Obama sounds almost like a 60′s draft dodger in places of the piece, comparing student groups that are opposed to selective service registration to antiwar thinkers like Henry David Thoreau, Thomas Jefferson and Walt Whitman. Grandiose stuff, and also consistent with the President’s love of high flown rhetoric.

#1. Obama attended at least one socialist conference while at Columbia

The evidence for this one comes straight from the horse’s mouth – namely, Obama himself. On page 122 of “Dreams From My Father,” one discovers this passage (emphasis added):

Political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or the African cultural fairs that took place in Harlem and Brooklyn during the summers — a few of the many diversions New York had to offer, like going to a foreign film, or ice-skating at Rockefeller Center.

This is a quite candid admission by Obama, not least of all because it doesn’t appear to be him stretching the truth at all, unlike with other passages in his memoir. The New York Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) did, indeed, hold a conference at the architecture school Cooper Union in April of 1983, when Obama was still a senior. National Review contributor Stanley Kurtz, in his book “Radical In Chief,” documents there being precisely no such other events held by the DSA, and fingers Obama’s name on a DSA mailing list, as well as other material that suggests Obama preregistered for another such event. Obama’s specifically named venue lends credence to the idea that he attended the 1983 Socialist Scholars’ Conference. To quote Kurtz:

Evidence strongly indicates that Cooper Union was not a regular location for socialist conferences, but was, on the contrary, a onetime venue. It was chosen as a site to attempt to revive the lapsed tradition of Socialist Scholars Conferences because of the Marx centennial, and its success led to a series of smaller socialist speaking events at CUNY Graduate Center, and full-scale socialist conferences at the Borough of Manhattan Community College.

Given all this, Obama’s reference to “socialist conferences” at Cooper Union surely means that we can reliably place him at the April 1983 Cooper Union Socialist Scholars Conference.

It should be noted that none of this is to imply that Obama holds the same views now that he held in college. Many people mature past their collegiate political views, though Kurtz’s book argues that Obama has not done so.

However, given that the President’s ideology did incline this way back then (even if it doesn’t anymore), then one can see where the Obama campaign might want to avoid further scrutiny of Obama’s time in college, since it would bolster (however unfairly) the narrative that the President is a dyed-in-the-wool Left wing radical. As Newsrealblog puts it:

The conferences in question were presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, self-described as the largest socialist organization in the country. Though there’s no specific mention or evidence of Obama attending any of these conferences, Kurtz has found Obama’s name on the organization’s conference mailing lists from that time frame. Kurtz also draws a conclusion that since the 1983 conference, timed with the anniversary of the death of Karl Marx, was practically a who’s-who of the American far Left, Obama would no doubt have been there.

At these conferences, Obama is certain to have had exposure to some scholars and philosophers who would influence his life in extremely consequential ways. The conferences featured speakers like Frances Fox Piven, whose strategy for collapsing capitalism made her a darling of the Left, and James Cone, who devised the notion of Black Liberation Theology.

The conferences also featured workshops like “Poverty In America,” “Social Issues,” “Black Theology and Marxist Thought,” “Race and Class in Marxism,” and “The Case For Transitional Reform.” (Yep, the conferences sure sound like a great way to spend time in New York.) Many of these workshops centered around the concepts of Alinskyite community organizing and working from within the system to push the political direction of the country toward the Left, to socialism.

How many more articles like that could be written if Obama’s college transcripts showed him regularly taking courses on this kind of material, or even one or two? Even one such article, however flimsy its substance, is probably too many for the Obama campaign.

Nevertheless, Obama’s time at Columbia is not a complete cipher. More information is desirable, to be sure, but the rush to find out more should not obscure the interesting elements of what we already know.

With reporting by George Thomas.

So why do you keep outlining what can only be described as ‘war’ between US and Russian forces?

With fleets of bombers raining explosives down on opposing forces how do you expect this not to escalate into a nuclear exchange?

Because there is not a reason on earth to have to use nukes for anything.
Of course if you prefer—- were doomed, doooooomed I say.

How can you possibly say it would not go nuclear? This would not be like Vietnam; it would be American forces killing Russian forces and vice versa!

So the Russians send bombers and US forces shoot some of them down; what next? Do the Russians send fighter escorts next time and shoot-down some US fighters; what next? Does the US bomb the Russian airbases?

This is exactly the sort of scenario that both sides in the Cold War spent fifty years trying to avoid.

A Blackjack can carry over 80,000 lbs of free fall bombs.
What a diamond formation from 20,000 ft can do to a large area of troops on the ground, as U.S. pows said, caused N. Viet guards to pee in their pants.

To shoot them down the allied or U.S. troops would have to turn on radar and Russia has Wild Weasel aircraft just as effective as the U.S.
Russia also has some 20,000 lb. bombs that can be carried by its bombers, and one of of those will kill everything within 1/4 mile of detonation.

There is no need or reason for nukes. To say there is, is paranoia.

No one is going to war, especially as with Obama as president it would end miserably for the U.S.