The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Cleland is far worse than "unpatriotic".

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

[larrymcg421]

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:

Just turn (the sheriff) loose and have him arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line.

[molson]

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"

[lungs]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The troops don't care if the people supporting them at home are democrats are republicans.

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.

Your petty, divisive bullshit isn't appreciated.

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.

conservatives do not hold an exclusive monopoly on being patriotic.

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.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The rest of us haven't moved from the core principles of the nation.

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....

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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

[AENeuman]

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

[flere-imsaho]

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.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

ECONOMY

Hopes:

• U.S. out of recession by early 2010.
• DOW back over 10,000 by 2011.
• The Obama team figures out how to get Wall Street to finally resolve all the bad debts out there (the weakness of the American economy isn't addressed in full until this is, in my opinion).
• In 2009, an Obama "reconstruction" plan passes Congress that is designed to rebuild the U.S. for the 21st century. It includes:
  • Substantial investment in R&D efforts for "21st century" industries, such as technology, biotechnology, pharma, green technologies, etc....
  • Infrastructure upgrades (roads, rail, ATC, internet backbone)
• Better regulatory powers, and a will to use them intelligently, at the SEC.

Predictions:

• U.S. out of recession by late 2010.
• DOW goes back over 10,000 during primary season for 2012 elections.
• Wall Street never really figures out how much bad debt is out there, but by late 2010 there's enough faith that the "Big 3" (Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America) have cleared the bulk of the liabilities that the country starts to lift out of its 2-3 year malaise in the financial markets.
• Chrysler fails and its parts are bought up by competitors (foreign & domestic). Ford ends up needing that line of credit, but turns out OK. GM is kept on life support by the government through 2010 and restructuring starts to pay off in 2011.
• A short-term stimulus package of tax breaks and generalized pork is passed in early 2009.
• A long-term "reconstruction" package is finally passed in mid/late-2009 and demonstrates the first serious test of Obama's influence over Congress. Relations are soured between the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress over the latter's lack of willingness to pass legislation over the objections of vocal minorities amongst the GOP in Congress. This drives the liberal blogosphere absolutely ballistic. The "reconstruction" package contains some forward-looking initiatives, but is also at least half pork.

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.

SUPREME COURT

Hopes: Stevens (age: 88, reason: age), Ginsburg (75, health), Scalia (72, age), Kennedy (72, age), Breyer (70, age), and Souter (69, age/desire to retire) all retire and are replaced by young (around 50), brilliant, accomplished and just-left-of-center progressive justices. Furthermore, Thomas experiences an epiphany and changes from a reliable but incomprehensible right-wing vote to a reliable but still incomprehensible left-wing vote. Roberts decides he doesn't want to be remembered as a Chief Justice who was always in the minority and so migrates to the center. Alito doesn't change, and becomes a bitter, disillusioned man.

Predictions: Early retirements for Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter. Easy confirmations for replacements who are young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. Later retirements for Kennedy and Breyer. More difficult confirmation for replacements due to aforementioned ineptitude of Democratic leadership in Congress and increasing hostility between them and Obama White House. Eventual replacements are confirmed with good majorities (think Roberts) and are still young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. In these later confirmations especially, the influence of "moderate" Republicans such as John McCain and Olympia Snowe are significant.

"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.

FOREIGN POLICY

Hopes:

• Majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010 in advance of current plan due to unexpected improvement in security and political stability.
• Resurgent Afghanistani government and invigorated Pakistani administration, with U.S. and NATO backing, rout Taliban in border regions. Afghanistan secure enough by early 2012 to start withdrawing U.S. troops.
• During the above operations OBL is mortally wounded by shrapnel but lives for a few days before dying. His body is discovered by Pakistani troops who overrun his position. Later, a video of OBL during his last days taken by a lapsed militant surfaces and shows a mentally enfeebled, ranting, humiliated, and afraid OBL. Negative impact to AQ recruitment & fundraising is significant.
• The Obama administration manages to engage again-Russian President Putin on a number of military and economic concords, with the result being a less-aggressive Russia and a more open state-influenced quasi-free market state.
• The Obama administration convinces China to institute real regulatory oversight for its factories so they stop sending deadly toys, drugs and food to the U.S.
• Obama & Clinton manage, in 2011, to broker a "Good Friday"-type in Israel/Palestine.
• Responding to backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranian Supreme Council do not support Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Presidential Election, and instead allow a "reformer" (by Iranian standards) to win the Presidency. By 2012, in response to further backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranians wind up their nuclear program and begin to open up their society.

Predictions:

• U.S. troops leave Iraq on schedule in 2011 but Iraqi state remains tenuous and violence/security comes and goes.
• A renewed emphasis on Afghanistan pushes the Taliban back and the situation by 2012 is a three-way on-and-off conflict between U.S.-supported Afghanistanis, the Taliban, and Pakistan in the border regions.
• OBL is found dead by U.S. special forces. The U.S. claims he died of renal failure. Most of the Islamic world feels it's likely the soldiers killed him. No one ever finds out the truth.
• Obama's charisma on the world stage isolates again-Russian President Vladimir Putin, who continues to intimidate neighbors and run Russia as a quasi-authoritarian state. Despite this, the Obama administration, through backchannel diplomacy, is able to engage Russia more often at the U.N. Security Council on various issues and is able, more than once, to play Russia off against China.
• Nothing significant happens in relations with China.
• Obama gets Iran to re-commit to a serious weapons inspection program, but there continue to be problems.
• Following what's essentially a pitched war between Israel and Hamas in 2009 and 2010, Obama & Clinton broker a "cessation" agreement between the two (who have, by this time, very war-weary populaces) in 2011. It doesn't solve anything permanently, but gets the violence to stop and sets the stage for long-term shuttle talks that are still underway in 2013.

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.

POLITICS

Hopes: Obama and Biden (Biden especially) work deftly with Democratic leaders in Congress to develop cohesive democratic voting majorities that deliver lots of progressive legislation. A thoroughly demoralized GOP loses even more seats in Congress in 2010, as the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Predictions: Democratic leadership in Congress continues to be weak and division in Democratic ranks is exploited by activist Republicans in Congress (more noticeable in the House) who attack legislation relentlessly and mercilessly. An Obama White House becomes increasingly frustrated with Democratic leadership and tension increases greatly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010 the GOP gains seats in the House, and many seats are won by activist "social conservatives". Despite this the Democrats pick up just enough seats in the Senate to go over 60, but the outlook for preserving those gains in 2012 looks especially bleak.

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

Well said.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

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"

[Edward64]

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

"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling his aides as he agreed to a short-term escalation of 30,000 troops, according to the Post.

"Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest," Obama said, according to the newspaper.

In an October meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama said: "I'm not doing 10 years. I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."

Another key disclosure in Woodward's book is that the CIA is running a 3,000-strong Afghan paramilitary force.

A U.S. official said the Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams were "well-trained, effective Afghan special operations forces," which conduct secret operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan.

The latter sounds suspect to me but great if real.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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.

You were born too late, Jon.

On that we can agree.

[JPhillips]

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

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actual polling showed the military vote split about 65/35 for McCain, so guess what, it seems there are some *gasp* actual liberals and even moderates in the military.

Purge the bastards

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Cleland is far worse than "unpatriotic".

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actual polling showed the military vote split about 65/35 for McCain, so guess what, it seems there are some *gasp* actual liberals and even moderates in the military.

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".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

What exactly did he do to destroy the nation?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

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".

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

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

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?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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."

[SirFozzie]

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

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

[JPhillips]

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.

[SirFozzie]

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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

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

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

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"

I predict it's on Bravo this fall

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

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".

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

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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

[JediKooter]

Oh Christine, you just say the funniest things:

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

[JPhillips]

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.

[SirFozzie]

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

[Edward64]

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

He was greeted by applause when he walked into the United Nations General Assembly, and applauded again, even after questioning 9/11 and claiming that the American government may have been behind the attack.

That’s right, applauded after questioning the motivation for the terrorist attacks, who was responsible for them, and essentially suggesting they were U.S. plot.
:
:
He also said that ”the majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world” believe that “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining of the American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime.”
:
:
On Tuesday, when Ahmadinejad spoke during the global summit on poverty, the American delegation remained even as he predicted the defeat of capitalism.

But true to form, he quickly went over the line with his 9/11 remarks and that prompted the U.S. diplomats, and others, to get up and walk out.

“ It’s outrageous,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. “a short distance from here, nine years ago, three-thousand people were killed in an attack perpetrated by nineteen people, and an attack that was orchestrated by Al Qaeda. We know exactly who did it, they’ve admitted it, the facts are not in dispute, so for the President of Iran to come here and make the suggestion that somehow this was an American plot, is simply outrageous.”

But as Ahmadinejad walked from the podium, he did so rewarded by applause.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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."

[JediKooter]

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...

[JPhillips]

Good to know Costa Rica has our back.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good to know Costa Rica has our back.

Yes it is...

[SirFozzie]

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)

[molson]

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

"Pledge to America" Unveiled by Republicans (Full Text) - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

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.

Makes sense that funding missile defense will lower the budget.

[sterlingice]

Nicely done again, Onion

SI