The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

When did the Shoe Bomber happen? Wasn't that under Bush's administration? Didn't the Shoe Bomber get tried in a civilian court in the United States?

Video: Fright Club | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fright Club
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart adequately addresses this on yesterday's Daily Show, starting at about 2:20 in the above clip:

To summarize:
-An identical attack with the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, doesn't count but the Underpants bomber does
-Fort Hood counts but Hasan Akbar, who killed two soldiers on an American military base in Kuwait in 2003 doesn't
-2001 Anthrax attacks don't count as they went unsolved
-UNC SUV attack by Muslim student who claimed to be following in the footsteps of a 9/11 terrorist doesn't count as there were no deaths
-LAX ticket counter shooting in 2002 doesn't count as it was declared "international terrorism"
-DC Sniper doesn't count
-Bush/Cheney released terrorists who made some of these attacks back into Yemen, pulled troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, and these actions caused Al Qaeda is even stronger than before
-Oh, and apparently Bush kept us safe from all terror attacks including 9/11 (Do you know how much a copy of "My Pet Goat" sells for on Amazon? Too darn much)

And, as the title says, "According to John Oliver, Republicans are good at national security like the Democrats are good at black people."

SI

[sterlingice]

Awfully round numbers in the thread today

Posts:
7,500
Views:
73,000


SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

REALLY funny stuff.........

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Harry Reid's Racist Comment
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

[sterlingice]

LOL- I see what you did there

SI

[molson]

Rudy has clearly lost it, but it's funny to now hear the Democrats bringing up every single attempted terrorist act they can think of, when the line during the Bush years was that the overbearing security measures weren't necessary because of the lack of attacks.

But ya, I'm always amazed by how good our security and homeland protection has been since 9/11. It was great under Bush, and it's been great under Obama. Nobody would have protected such a relatively terror-free a world after 9/11.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

But ya, I'm always amazed by how good our security and homeland protection has been since 9/11. It was great under Bush, and it's been great under Obama. Nobody would have protected such a relatively terror-free a world after 9/11.

What's even more amazing is how good it was before 9-11-01.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Rudy has clearly lost it, but it's funny to now hear the Democrats bringing up every single attempted terrorist act they can think of, when the line during the Bush years was that the overbearing security measures weren't necessary because of the lack of attacks.

But ya, I'm always amazed by how good our security and homeland protection has been since 9/11. It was great under Bush, and it's been great under Obama. Nobody would have protected such a relatively terror-free a world after 9/11.

World? Not so much.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

World? Not so much.

Right, that's part of the reason I'm amazed by our success here.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Rudy has clearly lost it, but it's funny to now hear the Democrats bringing up every single attempted terrorist act they can think of, when the line during the Bush years was that the overbearing security measures weren't necessary because of the lack of attacks.

But ya, I'm always amazed by how good our security and homeland protection has been since 9/11. It was great under Bush, and it's been great under Obama. Nobody would have protected such a relatively terror-free a world after 9/11.

the democrats are only bringing it up because the assertion by Rudy wasn't challenged and dispelled on the spot, and certain segments of the media have started to falsely go after Obama for not protecting Americans (see O'Reilly, Bill).

just evening things out is all.

although FWIW I'm one of the largest proponents of "national security and defense policy should not be politicized" that you'll ever find. Foreign policy in general also tends to be political-party agnostic over time in this country.

For that reason it always galls me when Republicans try to paint themselves as "the party of national security" when really they're no different.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

What's even more amazing is how good it was before 9-11-01.

Yes, and how good Europe was before the German invasion of Poland or how good the Pacific was before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Peace in our time to be sure!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Going very negative in the Massachusetts race. I'm not sure how the Democrats expect this tactic to be effective given that Palin isn't tied to the Mass. Senate race in any way.

Desperate Dems try to Palinize Massachusetts Senate race | Washington Examiner

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Going very negative in the Massachusetts race. I'm not sure how the Democrats expect this tactic to be effective given that Palin isn't tied to the Mass. Senate race in any way.

Desperate Dems try to Palinize Massachusetts Senate race | Washington Examiner

Well, I trust a site with "The Bogus Stimulus Jobs Map" as one of its big features on the side and every single article bashing Dems with purposely over-the-top language (or being wishy-washy on Michael Steele).

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, I trust a site with "The Bogus Stimulus Jobs Map" as one of its big features on the side and every single article bashing Dems with purposely over-the-top language (or being wishy-washy on Michael Steele).

SI

not sure why they'd go negative - Brown doesn't really have a chance.

I'd venture to say it could be snowing in hell and MA would still not elect a Republican Senator to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.

GOP polls show him within what...9pts? Dem polls show him still a good...15 or 16pts away (51-35 or something). Truth (as always) probably somewhere in the middle.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'd venture to say it could be snowing in hell and...

With the weather we've had lately...

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Going very negative in the Massachusetts race. I'm not sure how the Democrats expect this tactic to be effective given that Palin isn't tied to the Mass. Senate race in any way.

Desperate Dems try to Palinize Massachusetts Senate race | Washington Examiner

It's pretty obvious what the goal is here. If Palin comes out in support of Brown it will likely hurt him among independents as her favorability is low outside of the right. Don't know if it will work, but it's not brain surgery or anything.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's pretty obvious what the goal is here. If Palin comes out in support of Brown it will likely hurt him among independents as her favorability is low outside of the right. Don't know if it will work, but it's not brain surgery or anything.

you left out a "FAR" in before "right" in your point.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yes, and how good Europe was before the German invasion of Poland or how good the Pacific was before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Peace in our time to be sure!

sigh...

You serious? Europe was soooo peaceful before 1939 (what did Thomas Jefferson call Europe? "Nations of eternal wars"?)and there was no war in the Pacific either before Pearl Harbor. Forget it, I just erased about a two paragraph response. Your history teachers have taught you to see the world through red, white, and blue lenses. I am not going to convince you that meddling in other peoples business makes things worse and you won't convince me meddling in other people's business makes us safer. It's funny that you would be able to see this with any other country (USSR, England's empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) but if you think preemptive war is good for our country then lets leave it at that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's pretty obvious what the goal is here. If Palin comes out in support of Brown it will likely hurt him among independents as her favorability is low outside of the right. Don't know if it will work, but it's not brain surgery or anything.

It's the link of the day on conservative sites so he's going to post it. I doubt he knows jack shit about the race. Just see link and post because it must be good if Michelle Malkin picked it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yes, and how good Europe was before the German invasion of Poland or how good the Pacific was before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Peace in our time to be sure!

Yes, because if there is one thing we can compare to our current situation, it's 1930's and 40's Poland and Hawaii. It's like we never left.

Katrina wasn't a big deal because the people of Pompeii were all wiped out by natural disasters too and totally unprepared.

[RainMaker]

What the fuck happened to Giuliani? I know he wasn't immensely popular in NYC but I thought he was rather well respected across the board. I remember reading a popular book that actually used him as a case study and his brilliant idea for getting rid of graffiti on the subway trains. He had some problems like all mayors of big cities do, but he seemed to have done a lot of good in the city over his tenure. He came across great after 9/11 and was something the city really seemed to need. Was sort of the politician who didn't act like one.

So has he always been this crazy? Or is this just an act because he knows the farther you go to the extreme and the dumber your message is the more attention/books you can sell? Heck, I remember thinking of voting for him before the primaries began and then heard him speak and was totally turned off. So is this normal for him or did he go through some massive change?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What the fuck happened to Giuliani? I know he wasn't immensely popular in NYC but I thought he was rather well respected across the board. I remember reading a popular book that actually used him as a case study and his brilliant idea for getting rid of graffiti on the subway trains. He had some problems like all mayors of big cities do, but he seemed to have done a lot of good in the city over his tenure. He came across great after 9/11 and was something the city really seemed to need. Was sort of the politician who didn't act like one.

So has he always been this crazy? Or is this just an act because he knows the farther you go to the extreme and the dumber your message is the more attention/books you can sell? Heck, I remember thinking of voting for him before the primaries began and then heard him speak and was totally turned off. So is this normal for him or did he go through some massive change?

He's always come off like a nut, but the crazy ex-prosecutor schtick played very well in a city that was tired of crime and corruption. He did come in and straighten shit out. He didn't act like a politician, he acted like a grumpy New Yorker.

His support of Bush was his downfall. It was really rabid, even for a Republican. And terrorism/national security is just out of his league. He sounds like eloquent than Bush when he tries to talk about. He's a mayor.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What the fuck happened to Giuliani? I know he wasn't immensely popular in NYC but I thought he was rather well respected across the board. I remember reading a popular book that actually used him as a case study and his brilliant idea for getting rid of graffiti on the subway trains. He had some problems like all mayors of big cities do, but he seemed to have done a lot of good in the city over his tenure. He came across great after 9/11 and was something the city really seemed to need. Was sort of the politician who didn't act like one.

So has he always been this crazy? Or is this just an act because he knows the farther you go to the extreme and the dumber your message is the more attention/books you can sell? Heck, I remember thinking of voting for him before the primaries began and then heard him speak and was totally turned off. So is this normal for him or did he go through some massive change?

I think he saw this as his path the be president of the United Staetes. (And in 2004 he may very well have been right)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by panerd

sigh...

You serious? Europe was soooo peaceful before 1939 (what did Thomas Jefferson call Europe? "Nations of eternal wars"?)and there was no war in the Pacific either before Pearl Harbor. Forget it, I just erased about a two paragraph response. Your history teachers have taught you to see the world through red, white, and blue lenses. I am not going to convince you that meddling in other peoples business makes things worse and you won't convince me meddling in other people's business makes us safer. It's funny that you would be able to see this with any other country (USSR, England's empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) but if you think preemptive war is good for our country then lets leave it at that.

Truthfully, I don't know what Dutch was saying. He should clarify his remark.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes, because if there is one thing we can compare to our current situation, it's 1930's and 40's Poland and Hawaii. It's like we never left.

Remember that time you went out on a date with a dried up booger hanging from your nose? Yeah, so maybe you don't relive that on every date but goddamn if you don't at least check the mirror from now on to ensure it don't happen again.

Katrina wasn't a big deal because the people of Pompeii were all wiped out by natural disasters too and totally unprepared.

Katrina wasn't a big deal because...wait...what?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Remember that time you went out on a date with a dried up booger hanging from your nose? Yeah, so maybe you don't relive that on every date but goddamn if you don't at least check the mirror from now on to ensure it don't happen again.

Or what about the time you couldn't get your girlfriend to have sex, so you went home and looked at porn. Only, you accidentally hit the looking for men button, but for some strange reason it still did the trick that night. Sure you're not gay, but you make sure to look the other way in the gym shower just in case.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's the link of the day on conservative sites so he's going to post it. I doubt he knows jack shit about the race. Just see link and post because it must be good if Michelle Malkin picked it.

Yeah. FiveThirtyEight.com and HuffingtonPost.com haven't been talking about this situation or the polling on this race at all.

I shouldn't have to post things only from liberal sites to create discussion. Or maybe that is how it works given the posting leanings in this thread. I guess I expected more from some in this thread.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Truthfully, I don't know what Dutch was saying. He should clarify his remark.

Somebody mentioned that our leaders have done a great job handling security in a post-911 world and somebody else mentioned that the efforts prior to 911 were sufficient. My interpretation was that Bush and Obama didn't need to do anything different than before 911? Of course, I would not agree with that. I used the surprise attacks of WWII as analogy...which I shouldn't have done because they are distracting to the current conversation.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Or what about the time you couldn't get your girlfriend to have sex, so you went home and looked at porn. Only, you accidentally hit the looking for men button, but for some strange reason it still did the trick that night. Sure you're not gay, but you make sure to look the other way in the gym shower just in case.

Why is it that everytime a conservative mentions WWII the liberals always come back thinking about sucking dick? What the shit? Really...you lefties really go out of your way to try and get us to stop with the WWII talk.

[JPhillips]

No that wasn't about WWII, that was about the crazy booger analogy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's some "stunning" news from the White House that the stimulus has created over 2 million new jobs...........

Job Stimulus Results: White House Claims 'Stunning' Two Million Jobs Saved Or Created

It was the link of the day on liberal sites, so I thought that would justify its posting in this thread.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm surprised no one in the thread had been talking about that yet.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It was the link of the day on liberal sites, so I thought that would justify its posting in this thread.

I know this falls into the category of ...

but I haven't had my Sisyphus for breakfast yet this morning. It turns out you can post news from neutral sites, too- while I realize every site has some inherent bias, many try to actually stray towards the middle*. But I know that no matter where you post the link to, you'll have some nice, snarky message that bashes Obama or the left- thanks for being reliable.

*At the end of the day, that's what makes Fox News and many other fear mongers so genius in an evil sort of way. Your average liberal or moderate site will say "watch us because we're better at news than anyone else" while the right's message is more perverse: "watch us because you can't trust anyone else". It's a subtle but very important difference and why I just don't buy the Fox = CNN or MSNBC comparison. One tells you they are better but doesn't "prohibit" you from watching anything else while the other tries to create the echo chamber.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Maybe I missed it, but no comment on Palin signing up for a multi-year contract with Fox?

Assuming for a moment she does plan to run for President, and this is (at least partly) an attempt to stay in front of people for the next two years, what's everyone's take on whether or not this would increase her electability? Are Americans ready to elect a talking head? Note that this is also relevant for Mike Huckabee.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are Americans ready to elect a talking head?

Al Franken
Jesse Ventura

Does Ronald Reagan enter the equation here?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe I missed it, but no comment on Palin signing up for a multi-year contract with Fox?

I largely shrugged, and I imagine even most Fox viewers did too. Heck maybe even Palin backers did as well. Everybody has to be somewhere, this happens to be her temporary somewhere.

Are Americans ready to elect a talking head?

Not sure whether that question applies here. Both Palin & Huckabee remain polticians who are basically temping as commentators. The question you've asked would apply moreso IMO to a professional commentator who decided to run for office, a Rush or a Chris Matthews, etc.

edit to add: I think the voters in California, Minnesota, and wherever the hell Franken lives have answered that one already.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It turns out you can post news from neutral sites, too- while I realize every site has some inherent bias, many try to actually stray towards the middle*. But I know that no matter where you post the link to, you'll have some nice, snarky message that bashes Obama or the left- thanks for being reliable.

SI

Which, as has been stated numerous times, is not true either. The hot button topics are the ones I side with the Republicans on. I'd love to be talking about opening up gay marriage, full stem cell research, or the legalization of drugs like marijuana, but none of those are being pushed by Congress or the Administration currently (which is disappointing to me along with much of the liberal base). Instead, we're claiming job gains while Americans continue to lose jobs and push for a health care system that the majority of Americans are against.

As for neutral websites, list 'em out and I'll head right over and start posting non-partisan stories. I'm sure it's an enormous list of sites.

[flere-imsaho]

Good points, especially the Reagan one.

Edit: Having said that, it seems every presidential election cycle (at least in recent memory) there's always a phase of people focusing on about "experience". I was wondering to what extent simply having been a talking head for 2-4 year prior to the election in question (now that I think of it, it'll be even longer for Huckabee), would make this difficult.

I suppose a lot of it will depend on what issues the next campaign is run.

On a related note, I don't consider Venture or Franken to be terribly relevant because:

1. Minnesota is weird (and I've lived there)
2. I still feel in plenty of aspects the presidential election is different, obviously lagging further behind other elected offices in breaking new ground.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I largely shrugged, and I imagine even most Fox viewers did too. Heck maybe even Palin backers did as well. Everybody has to be somewhere, this happens to be her temporary somewhere.

To be honest, I agree and I sort of figured this was why there hadn't been a comment from anyone. Which is fine.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I largely shrugged, and I imagine even most Fox viewers did too. Heck maybe even Palin backers did as well. Everybody has to be somewhere, this happens to be her temporary somewhere.

I don't think anyone cares that much that she on FOX. It's a good platform for her, but outside of that, probably doesn't mean much.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The hot button topics are the ones I side with the Republicans on. I'd love to be talking about opening up gay marriage, full stem cell research, or the legalization of drugs like marijuana, but none of those are being pushed by Congress or the Administration currently (which is disappointing to me along with much of the liberal base).

Yet here we are, one day after two of the above issues were debated heavily in New Jersey, one passing and one not and I didn't see a peep from you. I love that you like to trot out those three every single time as "proof of your neutrality" yet you never post on those topics.

And you did nicely get in your stab at the Administration. Bravo. Again, we all expect nothing less.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd love to be talking about opening up gay marriage, full stem cell research, or the legalization of drugs like marijuana, but none of those are being pushed by Congress or the Administration currently (which is disappointing to me along with much of the liberal base).

So, I guess the question some of us have, MBBF, is: where were you when the GOP was in power? Where were your posts of "It's concerning for the GOP in the Senate that..." or "You'd think the Bush admin might want to avoid this topic..."?

I mean, you've been registered since 2001, but not really active in political threads since what, the 2008 primaries? Maybe if you explain what spurred you to contribute we might understand your motivations a little better and give you the benefit of the doubt more.

Because otherwise your posts and your timing really paint you (and it's going on two years now) as a GOP "concern troll".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yet here we are, one day after two of the above issues were debated heavily in New Jersey, one passing and one not and I didn't see a peep from you. I love that you like to trot out those three every single time as "proof of your neutrality" yet you never post on those topics.

And you did nicely get in your stab at the Administration. Bravo. Again, we all expect nothing less.

SI

I honestly didn't know that something happened in New Jersey. I know everyone else in this thread is fully informed, but I come here to learn just as much as pass on information. I trot them out because I back the administration (or might be even more left than them) on all of those issues.

If you could post a link about the NJ stories from a neutral website, I'd appreciate it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, I guess the question some of us have, MBBF, is: where were you when the GOP was in power? Where were your posts of "It's concerning for the GOP in the Senate that..." or "You'd think the Bush admin might want to avoid this topic..."?

I mean, you've been registered since 2001, but not really active in political threads since what, the 2008 primaries? Maybe if you explain what spurred you to contribute we might understand your motivations a little better and give you the benefit of the doubt more.

Because otherwise your posts and your timing really paint you (and it's going on two years now) as a GOP "concern troll".

I'm not sure why I have to explain anything. I appreciate the standards that I'm held to in this thread. Let's be honest here. Painting people as a given role in political discussion is what partisan posters do best. It's probably why my stances on both sides of the political line given the topic are so baffling to most. Most people don't straddle that line.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let's be honest here. Painting people as a given role in political discussion is what partisan posters do best.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Of course he didn't hear about the NJ stuff. It wasn't on a right-wing website or on a liberal site as a post attacking the President.

You Honor. I submit People's Exhibit A as evidence.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure why I have to explain anything. I appreciate the standards that I'm held to in this thread. Let's be honest here. Painting people as a given role in political discussion is what partisan posters do best. It's probably why my stances on both sides of the political line given the topic are so baffling to most. Most people don't straddle that line.

Hey, it turns out that I agree with the GOP on some things more than the Democrats. I support the death penalty, I'm more in line with their immigration stance, and... well, I wanted to make a joke about how I also support Michael Steele having the GOP job here but it would dull the rest of the point.

I'd say fiscal policy, but, nah- they're not for real budget balancing, just for election year tax cut bribes and then cutting social services they don't like to pay for it and ignoring the military budget whereas I prefer the social programs remain in place and don't mind paying for it. And that turns out to be one of the reasons I'm a liberal. Not much to hide there, really. And, honestly, over the last few years, I've become moreso than when I started posting on this board, not from anything here but just from living life, in general.

But I also don't go around today claiming to be something I'm not and trying to pretend I have some neutrality so that my argument has more weight or something. That said, these things do sort themselves out- people know who is more or less one way or the other- but it does need to be pointed out when you keep trying to paint yourself as a persecuted innocent bystander when it's just not true.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I honestly didn't know that something happened in New Jersey. I know everyone else in this thread is fully informed, but I come here to learn just as much as pass on information. I trot them out because I back the administration (or might be even more left than them) on all of those issues.

If you could post a link about the NJ stories from a neutral website, I'd appreciate it.

NJ Legislature approves medical marijuana bill - Yahoo! News
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...edName=topNews

No, the AP and Reuters aren't perfect but it has pretty much a boilerplate for these types of stories so it's not hideously slanted towards one side or the other.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No that wasn't about WWII, that was about the crazy booger analogy.

So I can't talk about WWII or boogers anymore...great, thanks alot.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So I can't talk about WWII or boogers anymore...great, thanks alot.

So there goes that 18 paragraph screed you had been working on about the history of boogers during WWII

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe I missed it, but no comment on Palin signing up for a multi-year contract with Fox?

Assuming for a moment she does plan to run for President, and this is (at least partly) an attempt to stay in front of people for the next two years, what's everyone's take on whether or not this would increase her electability? Are Americans ready to elect a talking head? Note that this is also relevant for Mike Huckabee.

I think Huckabee's out of the picture after the clemency stuff.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

NJ Legislature approves medical marijuana bill - Yahoo! News
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...edName=topNews

No, the AP and Reuters aren't perfect but it has pretty much a boilerplate for these types of stories so it's not hideously slanted towards one side or the other.

SI

I'll be perfectly honest. I think that's a load of shit. I'm REALLY tired of this belief that states or this nation has to justify the legalization through any 'medicinal' purposes. That pipeline is horribly abused and they're probably spending MORE time creating new administrative groups to work through what is legal and not legal, resulting in MORE government intervention. Just legalize the weed already. I've never smoked it and wouldn't if it was legalized, but it's ridiculous to not allow it in full at this point.