% of people under the poverty line (or "poor" by whatever metric) is a much more accurate way of judging the poverty in a society though.

Not a single GOP senator.

History won't judge them kindly.

A terrible day for the history of this nation.

This is by far, IMO, the worst showing by the entire government and process I've ever seen.

Surely though this is outside of the question - bad renters come in all sizes and shapes - in this case they obviously 'could' pay the rent but chose not to, I don't see how this affects the argument for helping people in need - as to be frank they weren't and shouldn't have received a handout as you put it ..

I wasn't saying we should move to private schools, just pointing out that people that send their schools via a more direct monetary route (such as cutting a monthly check to a school vs generic taxation) take FAR more interest in the success of their kids.

i don't think that's actually the correlation.

there's plenty of shitty rich parents who send their kids to private schools and don't take an interest in their lives.

I think that has more to do with said parents having more money and thus better able to make time for taking an interest in the success of their kids, whereas poorer parents will be working multiple jobs at places that won't allow much time for flexible scheduling.

I understand the hesitance to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell provision, but the fact that the CNN article makes it seem that most of the opposition is due to the DREAM Act has me furious. In my opinion, if these soldiers are willing to fight and die for the country, they damn well deserve a chance at citizenship.

I don't think it'd ever be possible in the short-term frankly, in England I paid around 46% tax on my earnings plus paying a 17.5% VAT on most non-essential purchases, in Sweden the tax rate is much higher - especially for higher rate earners (I think its about 60%).

I can't see policies involving those type of rates as being election winners ;)

To get that sort of thing accepted in America would require a huge change of mentality from the electorate and that sort of shift takes time.

Would it be worthwhile, I'd personally say 'yes' and quote what can be seen of the standard of living from most European countries (not pure 'money/income/luxuries' but the quality of life they have).

That being said I'm biased by my upbringing; what I consider sensible/important might not be reflected within American society.

Looks like ya'll got both angles covered. :)

In any event, I'm discussing the issue in general not as any sort of absolute.

Saxby Chambliss on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Saxby Chambliss is a pussy who made up a bogus knee injury and used student deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam. He's all for war, just not if it requires him having to actually fight in it.

I understand there are people who spew hate because they have issues coming to terms with their own sexuality, it's another when you're dishonoring soldiers who put their lives on the line for this country doing something that you weren't man enough to do when your number was called.

Just a closeted coward.

I think we can all agree that alcohol use and body art in the military would be a path towards the end of America as we know it.

Never heard of him before and apologies for taking the thread off course ... but I can't be the only person who thought that was a 'porn star' name surely?

Yes, but he's for our values. He doesn't do anything except vote for the far right stuff, but undereducated rednecks in GA love him. I think I've mentioned it in the past, but he's never actually sponsored any legislation that became anything. He just shouts about the evil gays and evil socialist taxes and the people flock from their trailers. Oh, they flock from their basement in between pots of coffee too.

More Saxby:

Homophobic Comment on Gay Rights Blog Traced to Republican Senator's Office

:lol: :D

I can't wait to hear all of those that complained about the potential consequences for Lieberman by the Dems show real outrage today now that Murkowski is going to suffer real consequences for running as an independent.

Am I wrong or couldn't Obama just sign an executive order ending "Don't ask, don't tell"? Of course then the liberals couldn't be outraged at the conservatives for hate mongering and the conservatives couldn't create a wedge issue to help get the homophobes out to vote in the fall elections.

IMO, it is all about energizing the base away from the terrible job both sides are doing and get them to argue about a non-issue like the Mosque in NYC or gays in the military. How about discussing the actual war?

If he does that, is it actually legally binding?

SI

I think it needs congressional action because DADT was a signed law. I know I've read some speculation that Obama could do this on his own, but I'm not sure exactly how DADT was structured.

Being able to serve openly is a much more than a "non-issue" to many people in this country.

I've always said - the Republicans are much better at "playing the game of politics" than the Democrats. It's a shame their policies are so morally repugnant to me.

Especially the tens of thousands of gays currently in the military.

I don't know, I was honestly asking. I think I come across as mostly anti-Obama in this thread but I really would be a big fan if he tackled any of these issues...

1) endless war
2) ending the war on drugs
3) gay rights
4) repeal of the patriot act

These are supposed to be principles of the Democratic party.

Those really aren't principles of the Democratic party. I wish they were, but they haven't been during my lifetime.

If the president can do something, campaigned that he would do something, and leaves it to Congress to fight over than the problem lies with him and not with any member of Congress no matter how backwards their thought process is. I would think you would agree with me that dead gay and straight soldiers is a much bigger issue than DADT but there doesn't even seem to be debate on this. (IMO because they know gays divides the country evenly while discussing the war might actually piss off the voters and cause them to look outside the Republicrats)

Pretty sad then that neither party is willing to take on issues that a large chunk of the country (obviously #2 withstanding) support. Not sure than outside of law enforcement and the "for the children" crowd that many people would have a problem with #2 either.

I dunno, but I suspect that in many parts of the country, a lot more people care about #2 (drugs are bad, mmkay) than #3 (gay rights)

SI

"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." (not that either side is particularly good, unfortunately)

SI

Sadly I do have to agree, though I do think a large portion of the country thinks the wars are a complete disaster. Wonder if they will have any balls to say something when we march into Iran?

Obama could sign an EO but it wouldnt end DADT. DADT would still be in place and the next President could rescind the EO on his first day in office. Obama and Gates have already changed the policies of DADT by making it much more difficult for a case to be brought forward against someone, but once again that could be quickly revoked by the next President.

But it's always nice for the Libertarians around here to find any way to criticize liberals for being hypocrites. That seems to be the favorite FOFC Libertarian pasttime.

The simple fact here is that the Democrats tried to overturn DADT and the Republicans blocked it. Spin it however you want to make both sides look bad, but if the Republicans didnt block it, then it would have been overturned.

I think it's one of those topics that many people disagree with but isn't high on their radars. So, even with 60 or 70% disagreeing, it's not on most voter's top 5 issues, according to recent polls. In fact, I'd almost wager "our President is a Muslim" is on more top 3 lists than "War in Iraq/Afghanistan", sadly enough.

To use a silly example, maybe 70% prefer Coke to Pepsi but you aren't going to vote for a high tax, gay rights, atheist Coke-drinker over a Tea Party Pepsi-drinker if you live in Rural Kansas.

SI

And if the Senate weren't broken 56 Dems would win.

Thats what my post was going to say but I figured it would be more of the "favorite FOFC Libertarian pasttime" if I mentioned that the Democrats do hold a majority and couldn't even get every member of their party to vote for it. (though your definition of broken might be different than mine :) )

So a couple of conservative Dem votes is a bigger problem than every GOP vote? The Dems passed it in the House and had 56 votes in the Senate. The problem is not on that side of the aisle.

Well Judy Biggert (Ill.), Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Haw.), Ron Paul (Tex.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) all voted to repeal in the House but Ron Paul is a Libertarian nutjob so I guess we are better off with the rest of the "normal, non nutjob" House republicans who voted for it.

Oh and I almost forgot these "normal, non nutjob" Democrats who "hate gays"...

Marion Berry (Ark.), Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Rick Boucher (Va.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Chris Carney (Pa.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Chet Edwards (Tex.), Bob Etheridge (N.C.), Gene Green (Tex.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Solomon Ortiz (Tex.), Colin Peterson (Minn.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Ike Skelton (Mo.), John Spratt (S.C.), John Tanner (Tenn.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.).

The only Libertarian member of Congress actually voted to repeal but keep preaching against people that are actually on your side.

EDIT: Oh and the official party platform. Again, just facts...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...-tell%E2%80%99

I was talking about the Senate filibuster vote, but you won't find me defending the votes of these Dems. As for Paul he's not always nuts, but as long as he keeps pushing for a gold standard he just can't be taken seriously.

I've never said that Libertarians don't agree with me on this issue. I'm not preaching against Libertarian policies, just tired of you and Buc (though he hasn't done this lately) and other Libertarians on your soapboxes telling us that we're just as bad as the Republicans.

Apparently since a handful of Dems in the Senate and House voted against the measure, we can't be pissed that every single GOP Senator (even the biggest RINO) voted to use a procedural maneuver to deny rights to gay Americans.

Basically. The issue is that UCMJ has rules against homosexuals in the military. Clinton was attempting to change that, but ran into opposition so signed an EO that become DADT... homosexuality was still against the UCMJ, but you don't harrass or go after people to find out if they are gay. That was the compromise.

It requires Congressional action for gays to openly serve because they have to rewrite the UCMJ rules, which can't be done by EO.

Using this criteria, most of my brother's chain of command should have been removed from service while he was in Ramadi.

As would the C-I-C (although the military seemed to despise Clinton exponentially more than they dislike BO).

I thought being in the military (or the NBA) led to alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art. Not homosexuality

SI

Well, you can't expect a draft-dodger and chickenhawk like Chambliss to understand what it's like to serve.

Wasn't Chambliss the asshat who called wartime amputee Max Cleland unpatriotic?

SI

Clinton was kind of the "perfect storm" of Presidents the military likes to hate. Draft dodger, repeatedly signed over operational control to NATO or the UN, authorized a few undermanned missions and also attempted to cut and/or limit budgets.

In comparison, resistance to Obama in the military comes either from the birther contingent or people who simply don't like Democratic presidents.

It should be noted that there was plenty of hate for W as CIC (and even more for Rumsfeld). Draft dodger (him and Cheney), authorized wars without sufficient funding or supply chain for adequate equipment, out to lunch on strategy, took resources from the war many signed up for and applied them to a war many did not (i.e. how many in the Army agreed with Pat Tillman's assessment after he served in Iraq).


But these two wars have exposed some really appalling failures amongst the chain of command. Cowardice by hiding in FOBs while sending the enlisted out on patrol / missions. Cowardice by not pestering chain-of-command for adequate equipment. Lack of ethics by covering up / downplaying injuries, including a wholesale ignoring of the effects of concussions and other brain injuries. Routine application of truly appalling tactics. Covering-up of illegal activities. The list goes on.

I don't mean to denigrate the service of the vast majority of those who serve, but these simply aren't isolated incidents anymore. The Armed Forces, as a structure, have simply become broken over time and increasingly serve to reward the negative traits in their officer corps as opposed to the positive ones. This, more than anything, including homosexuality, has robbed the Armed Forces of morale, unit cohesion and everything else Saxby Chambliss may be talking about.

Yep.

It's surprising that when the Beckian Teabaggers talk about "restoring honor" to politics, they don't even mention twats like Chambliss.

Cleland is far worse than "unpatriotic".

We did. But, I think it was more because of him being a liar about getting a blow job from a chubby chick, when everyone knows that a chubby chick knows how to give a good one and there's no reason to lie about it. ;)

It's because he didn't actually throw his four amputated limbs at the advancing Vietcong that you don't consider him patriotic, right?

Nope. It's because, whatever he may or may not have been in Vietnam, he turned into a worse-than-useless sack of liberal shit.

Nothing he did, including getting blown up, outweighs the sum total of his body of work.

Trying to make Cleland unassailable due to his time in uniform is a weak version of saying Hitler made the trains run on time.

GO FUCK YOURSELF

The troops don't care if the people supporting them at home are democrats are republicans. Your petty, divisive bullshit isn't appreciated.

As much as you'd dearly wish it to be true, or believe it to be true in your own twisted world-view, conservatives do not hold an exclusive monopoly on being patriotic.

You're delusional and pathetic.

No one is claiming he should be unassailable. It was the nature of the attack, which even Zell Miller and John McCain said was reprehensible.

Another gem from Saxby, back when he was a Representative in 2001:

This would be my TV network pitch for the next fall season:

"Maybe we're just moving too fast, right from 'no gays allowed' to full intergregation. Maybe the rational intermediate step is all-gay regiments!!"

The pilot pretty much writes itself.

Working title for the show: "Fort Fabulous"

Chambliss and his supporters should be taken to the wall and shot.

You & I obviously know very different troops. Most D's are lucky to not be shot on sight when they come near armed troops based on every one I've known in the past 20 years.


What's divided this nation is the Godless contingent and/or socialists on the left. The rest of us haven't moved from the core principles of the nation.


I guess that depends upon the definition of "patriotic". For me, it extends well beyond vague claims of "supporting the troops" and includes not trying to either destroy the country outright or reduce it to condition that isn't fit for human habitation. It's the latter that the left has made significant progress toward already.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, rights against unlawful search and seizure, a right to speedy trial, due process and against double jeopardy, rights against cruel and unusual punishment, the separation of powers between legislature, executive and judicial branches, habeas corpis not being suspended...

Yeah, these are core principles I see you championing all the time....

I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can call a guy patriotic for giving four limbs in the service of his country while still using other invective against him for his political views.

Of course, the concept of nuance has always been lost on you.


You know troops from the South. I know troops from the North. Sounds about right.


Nor have the "rest of you" moved from pretty much any other idea popular in the 18th century....


Yes yes, broken record. Anyone who doesn't share your specific narrow view of the ideal world state is a blight upon humanity and a waste of oxygen, etc.... You were born too late, Jon.

pa•tri•ot•ism
–noun
Whatever the hell Jon says it is!

For the longest time I carried a newspaper article that said: Triple amputee hand delivers letter to congress

Hewing back to the early days of the thread for the moment, I thought I'd revisit some of my hopes / predictions from December, 2008.


Wrong on the technicals (first two bullets of each). I was definitely wrong on the pessimistic belief in the Dow's ability to rebound. And while I was "kind of" right on the recession thing, I'll admit I didn't mean the end of the "technical recession", but the end of people feeling they're in a recession, which clearly hasn't happened yet.

In this section the rest of my "hopes" were meant as comedy relief.

More pessimistic in my prediction of the future of the auto industry than reality has shown, though not terribly, terribly far off.

Lastly, I think my prediction on the legislative response to the recession is more-or-less correct.


"Hopes" was meant definitely as comedy, though parts of that I'd love to see.

Two for three on retirements in predictions, and I think my analysis of the replacements and the confirmations is more-or-less right on. The rest of it still has two years to run, though I suspect we'll be replacing John McCain's name with Lindsay Graham's.


Predictions for Iraq & Afghanistan seem about correct, give or take. There's still some time left to run on these. Two years still to run on a resolution of OBL, but I don't think either the hope or the prediction will come to pass.

More wrong than right on Russia, right (in my opinion) on China, wrong (so far) on Iran. No mention of North Korea is a pretty big oversight.

The Israel/Palestine stuff could still happen, but I doubt it.


My prediction predates (just) the Tea Party. I am awesome. Bow to my predictive powers. :D

:D

Well said.

Thanks Flere for redirecting. It was getting personal and non-productive.

Woodward's new book on Obama is getting alot of press.

Official defends Obama ahead of revelations in Woodward book - CNN.com


The latter sounds suspect to me but great if real.

According to a news story I read yesterday or the day before, we were officially out of the recession in July of 2009. So, for whatever that's worth. :) So, you didn't do too bad here.

Actually, I've known them from all parts of the country (with the random exception of the southwest, can't recall but one from there now that I think about it a bit), at least for roughly the last 25 years or so. Maybe it's never come up here much but the majority of my social circle was military - current or ex - for about a 10 year stretch of my life, from Rangers born in Washington state to Marines from damned near everywhere to one of the early SEAL trainers who was from somewhere around PA IIRC. I found very little difference in their opinions on anything other than food that related to geography.


On that we can agree.

Check out the number of vets of Iraq and Afghanistan inthe Dem and GOP caucuses. It's going to surprise you.

Purge the bastards

He fought in a war that his leaders asked him to and risked his life and gave up his limbs for the country. You watched one on TV.

Apparently he must have borne a grudge. He certainly came back & did plenty to help those who would destroy the nation from within.

I make no bones about it, I wish it had been his head rather than his arms & legs.

It seems very possible that any military you knew who were Democrats didn't talk politics with you, Jon.

This is why as much as you'll crow about being a "true patriot," you're really nothing of the sort.

I can only imagine the anger if someone had said that about your friend who came home from Afghanistan.

I can do you one better. Ron Paul led in military donations for any candidate in the 2008 election and he was *gasp* anti-war. Not pro-war like McCain or anti-Iraq war like Obama but against all wars. Of course according to the mainstream media and half the posters here he is a "nutjob".

What exactly did he do to destroy the nation?

All wars? Even if we were attacked? He wouldn't try to stop a genocide? Would he have been against WW2? Do tell.

Yeah, ok. Really with the genocide response? Like that is the reason the United States enters into any war. Anyways he is against the United States empire that is just as big a drain on the economy as all of the entitlement programs. All the great empires fall, they all run out of money. But as long as it doesn't happen in the next 6 years no hawkish senator or member of Congress needs to worry about this right?

Believe it or not, I was actually looking for a serious response, not some hysterical rant. I wasn't making a judgment on what the US has done or what they will do. I wasn't defending any current war. And I'm not sure why your questioning me on the intentions of hawkish politicians. Nobody would confuse me for a hawk.

You said Paul was against all wars. What do you exactly mean by that? Answer the question directly. Is he really against all wars or not? Or does he make judgment calls on the value of going to war, just like everyone else?

Sorry for the response, I think I need a break from the politics thread. (I actually have been on hiatus for a while and the DADT debate brought me back) I am anti-war for quite a few reasons (most political, but a few important ones personal) and think that Ron Paul may be the most important conservative anti-war voice out there. Anyways instead of paraphrasing him again like I probably did a few posts ago I will quote right from his website...

http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/ht...ignpolicy.html

"The only proper way to go to war, the only legal way to go to war, the only constitutional way to go to war is to declare the war, by the congress, not by the president. The people should be behind it.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Interesting debunking of the "Small Business drives America" mantra.

time-to-stop-worshiping-small-businesses: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Here's a draft of the GOP Pledge to America. It may be effective politically, but it's got a lot of nonsense in it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...35-503544.html

How exactly are the going to balance the budget with 100 billion in cuts but a permanent enactment of the Bush tax cuts and new small business deductions? And repealing healthcare just gets us further from a balanced budget.

Speaking of healthcare, how are insurance companies going to stay in business if you repeal the mandate, but refuse denial of coverage for preexisting conditions?

And how are you going to further strengthen the military and still balance the budget?

At the end of the day it just shows how fundamentally unserious much of the GOP is about the way things actually work. They're brilliant politicians, but God help of if any of them actually think they can balance the books with this plan.

and the social conservatives have got their claws into it as well.. They're all for state rights, until it keeps them from telling other people what they can or can't do.

Olbermann went after this last night, too, listing many of the "small businesses" that file as S Corps that are actually, you know, big like billionaires, millionaires, multi-national companies (such as TD Waterhouse and their $500B- yes, billion, in assets, for instance), and Olbermann himself said he is one. So when we're talking about tax breaks affecting small businesses, it turns out only 3% of those tax cuts are actually going to small businesses to create growth. The rest are going to billionaires, millionaires, and large businesses.

SI

I predict it's on Bravo this fall ;)

SI

This might go back to what we were talking about before, somewhat. If you're the average American on the street, not in the military, the wars are a pretty low priority for most right now. But if you're actively in the military, your overriding concern is probably, well, the military since you're in it and it's your job. Then you probably would weigh it much differently than other people.

If I were in the military and you told me, I could go home and not have to fight for a pacifist or keep going with the status quo- I think that would carry a hell of a lot of weight with me as it doesn't just affect my taxes (which is about the only affect it really has on people and we've even insulated them from that now by just borrowing instead of raising taxes or cutting services to fight) but also my livelihood and standard of living. It's like an economic, moral, and personal issue all rolled into one.

SI

It's just so cute when a politician (or a group of them) promises to cut federal spending and taxes.

Oh Christine, you just say the funniest things:

http://thinkprogress.org/christine-odonnell-record/

As long as the GOP can't override vetoes, I'm fine with them beating the hell out of the current crop of ineffectual pussies in the Democratic party. They have a choice to frame the issue as "The Obama tax cuts mean every family making less than 250,000 will not see an increase in their taxes and we'll make significant progress towards balancing the budget," or "We said we'd pass a middle class tax cut but it doesn't look like we'll have time so now the GOP can say we'll raise taxes on everybody."

Guess which one they picked. Fuck em.

Here's Politico's rating of the promises in the GOP Contract on America.. rating each on a likelihood rating of 1 to 5 (well, one item is a 0, but even the most ardent "repeal Obamacare" supporter realizes that repealing the healthcare changes cannot happen, barring an Act of God)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42621.html

I would like to know the countries that walked out, the countries that applauded.
Applause for Ahmadinejad « Liveshots

BBC reported the walkouts:

BBC News - Ahmadinejad UN speech sparks walk-outs

"The American delegation was joined in its walk-out by representatives from 32 other nations - including all the EU countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Costa Rica."

Well, I think that hole is deep enough in New York City where we'd never here from Crazy Ahmy J, ever again. Just saying...

Good to know Costa Rica has our back.

Yes it is...

Republicans devise (illegal) strategy of "voter caging" to challenge voters likely to vote Democratic in elections...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/21/...-voter-caging/

(yes, biased site, take with a grain of salt, but the info they have looks pretty solid)

Poll: 1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

WASHINGTON—According to a poll released Tuesday, nearly 20 percent of U.S. citizens now believe Barack Obama is a cactus, the most Americans to identify the president as a water- retaining desert plant since he took office.

Enlarge Image

A growing segment of the population believes the president is pollinated by moths and hummingbirds.

The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found a sharp rise in the number of Americans who say they firmly believe Obama was either born a cactus, became a cactus during his youth, or has questionable links to the Cactaceae family.

"We asked people of varying races, ages, and backgrounds the same question: 'What is President Barack Obama?'" Pew spokeswoman Jodi Miller told reporters. "And a fifth of them responded, 'A cactus.'"

According to the poll, Obama has lost favor among many voters who supported his candidacy in 2008 but have since come to doubt he is a mammal. While these Americans concede Obama may not specifically be a cactus, most believe he is a plant of some kind, with 18 percent saying the president is a ficus, 37 percent believing him to be a grain such as wheat or millet, and 12 percent convinced he is an old-growth forest in Northern California.

When asked why they agreed with the statement "President Obama is a large succulent plant composed of specialized cells designed for water retention in arid climates," many responded that they "just know," claiming the president only acts like a human being for political purposes and is truly a cactus at heart.

Enlarge Image

A number of polled Americans identified the above as a photo of President Obama.

White House officials have asserted that the nation's 44th president is a person.

"You can't go a day without hearing how Obama's a radical cactus sympathizer who wants to sap America of all its drinking water, or how he was actually born in the Kalahari Desert," said media critic Lynn Pelmont, referring to cable news outlets that suggest the president has prickly spines he uses to protect himself from thirsty animals. "For a man who prides himself on delivering a coherent message, there's an awful lot of confusion out there about whether he's a Harvard Law graduate or a leafless flowering shrub."

"He must speak frankly to the American people about his mammalian background," Pelmont added. "If not, it's only a matter of time before people start believing those fringe bloggers who claim the president of the United States is actually an old washing machine."

Some Beltway observers have accused Republicans of tacitly encouraging the cactus rumor, pointing out that if millions of voters believe Obama produces buds through spirally arranged areoles situated along his stem, the GOP has a much better chance of retaking Congress in November.

"If the president says he is a human being, I'll take him at his word," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday on Meet the Press. "Though I've never heard him complain about being thirsty. Not once. That could be a coincidence, I suppose, but it's really not my place to say."

During a Wednesday morning briefing, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs once again denied that President Obama is a cactus, citing numerous physiological attributes of the nation's chief executive, including his ability to walk upright and to manipulate objects with his opposable thumbs.

"Cacti don't talk," said Gibbs, shaking his head. "They just don't."

President Barack Hussein Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI to parents Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. From the ages of 6 to 10 he lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia, where he attended Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School. In 1971, Obama returned to Hawaii, where he was raised primarily by his grandmother until he left home to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"I don't care what he says or what his people say or what anybody else says," 48-year-old Kansas resident Jake Nolan told reporters. "The guy's a cactus, plain and simple. I mean, Christ, look at him.

Makes sense that funding missile defense will lower the budget. :lol:

Nicely done again, Onion :)

SI