Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The only way to hold Barack Obama accountable for his past unlawful actions is to impeach him.

You bitch and moan about Obama doing his job but you were silent, save for when you were actively defending that group of felons and war criminals that passed as a government from 2000 to 2008, Ican.

What the hell is wrong with your brain?

1 Reply

@JTT,

I am beginning to think he might actually be GWB. Umhh? Twisted Evil

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

I grant you Media as a special interest.

I didn't mean as a special interest. I meant within the coalition you have erected of political parties, corporate interests, and labor unions. Possibly the key member. I was making an argument in the 2008 campaign that Media had chosen the candidates. Not for their policies of course. For the interest in the concoction. Ratings in other words. Controversy. Eyeballs on ads.

I don't see TV as anything other than anti-democratic. The panem is solved. It's in gross surfeit. The circenses are all that remain. And it's megalopolitan. If the Tea Party is an incoherent reaction it is still a reaction. A visceral one. Understandable I assume if you've been reduced to the level of cats. A blind lunge at a hydra-headed monster.

But you haven't answered my question. Has this situation always existed or was it voted for? It's an interesting question imo.

My logic implies that opponents of the Tea Party are either members of this de facto single party you have erected or its duped lickspittals and lackeys. And they are sure to vote.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I don't disagree with any of this. As to when it came about - it was enough of a concern to George Washington that he made it a point in his farewell address in 1796 (see my post two pages back). Of course we voted for it (unless you mean the singular "you" and then, no -- I didn't vote for it). "Join" is a four-letter word that I avoid as much as possible. How much easier is it to give one's proxy to someone else and let them fight your battles for you than take a chance on getting your own nose bloodied? That's what all of these groups are -- battle fighters, ostensibly fighting the battle on behalf of the little guy. Unfortunately, the little guy either didn't realize or didn't care that the big guy was going to get so big that "the people" were no longer nearly as important to their interests as they themselves were. He's now just the puppet who keeps voting the way he's told to so that the "other side" doesn't have an advantage.

I've said elsewhere that the origins of the Tea Party movement were in direct response to this sense of lack of control that many Americans feel. Unfortunately, it's been usurped by folks with an agenda who make up a faction of their own.

2 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

Of course we voted for it (unless you mean the singular "you" and then, no -- I didn't vote for it). "Join" is a four-letter word that I avoid as much as possible. How much easier is it to give one's proxy to someone else and let them fight your battles for you than take a chance on getting your own nose bloodied?

I should clarify this by saying that we "voted for it" by joining parties and unions and clubs and groups knowing that those groups were lobbying for influence in government and or business. It's why we joined them, in many/most cases. What most folks failed to realize is, just as George predicted, the factions then got to change the rules of engagement so that they became the only players.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

How much easier is it to give one's proxy to someone else and let them fight your battles for you than take a chance on getting your own nose bloodied?

Gee!! I wrote a song 30 years back called "I'm a Politician"

I can't remember it too well. It didn't work out.

I'm a politician, I'll give you what you want,
You don't need to get your hands messed up.
With me out in front

I'm a politician, I'll give you what you need.....

After that I couldn't make my mind up.

There was "It's all marked down in the cards,
And written in the seed."

Or "More cake and ales and a haybarn full of weed."

That was the chorus. The only other line I remember is something about taking it from the 49 to give to the 51 is obviously bent.

It's interesting that an intelligent American thinks they are reduced to the level of cats. A cat would never gets its ass down to a ******* polling station.

Pavlov's followers took cats on. They said he was playing at it with dogs. I'll not tell you the result.

My thesis is that it's like pro-wrestling and as long as we are all goggling at the idiot box the business is done. In 1984 BB makes them goggle at it.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Ignore ican. Just vote down his posts without reading them because there is nothing new in any of them. Unless,of course, he is really a leftie, using reverse psychology on all of us.

0 Replies

I thought Obama wanted DADT repealed??
He has said its a bad policy, so why is his admin now fighting ending it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/politics/15military.html?_r=1&ref=us

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Saying it would appeal a ruling striking down the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the United States military, the Obama administration on Thursday asked the federal judge who issued the ruling for an emergency stay of her decision.

So, does this admin oppose DADT or do they support it?
Their words and their actions are saying 2 different things.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I thought Obama wanted DADT repealed??
He has said its a bad policy, so why is his admin now fighting ending it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/politics/15military.html?_r=1&ref=us

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Saying it would appeal a ruling striking down the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the United States military, the Obama administration on Thursday asked the federal judge who issued the ruling for an emergency stay of her decision.

So, does this admin oppose DADT or do they support it?
Their words and their actions are saying 2 different things.

I agree; it's a bad thing. Technically the DoJ is supposed to ALWAYS appeal when their rulings are overturned, no matter what the wishes of the President are, because the DoJ serves the country and not the executive. But I think Obama could have blocked it without paying too much of a political price.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I know the DoJ is supposed to appeal, and I dont mind that.
But Obama has not, to the best of my knowledge, said anything supporting this ruling at all.
It seems he has gone completely mute on the subject.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Another Obama disappointment; I believe he promised something on this subject on overturning don't ask, don't tell.

0 Replies

What does "serving openly in the United States military" mean in practice? If the military doesn't like it there are ways of circumventing the effects of it.

It's just a political football. Are they supposed to enforce that a heterosexual soldiers be put in a tent with an openly flaunting homosexual taking the piss out of the photographs of wives and children.

Pretending it's just an abstract concept is plain silly.

2 Replies

@spendius,

You're the silly dude with no idea how sex fantasies work in humans. It's not how we think that counts about sex; it's about how we act out on them.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Could it be that he is trying to avoid arousing opposition on a controversial subject, one for which he arguably has more to lose than to gain, just a few weeks before the coming elections?

2 Replies

@spendius,

You have no idea what you are talking about, and make that more apparent every time you post.

There have been gays serving in the military has long as there has been a military.
I have served with men that were gay, and everyone knew they were gay, and it was never a problem.

You need to grow up and realize that having gays or lesbians in the military will NOT hurt the military, it will improve the military.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I have no idea.
I just find it stranbe that he campaigned on repealing DADT, but now seems hell bent on keeping it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Could it be that he is trying to avoid arousing opposition on a controversial subject, one for which he arguably has more to lose than to gain, just a few weeks before the coming elections?

Probably spot on. At the same time, however, it acts as a depressant when it comes to his own base, and the other side is already pretty riled up, so it's not clear that it will work out in his best favor.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Asking for an emergency stay of a previous ruling illustrates hell bent on keeping it?

1 Reply

@JTT,

He has done nothing on the legislative side to repeal DADT.
And now asking for a stay of the judges order while they prepare an appeal is not exactly the best way to show that he wants the law repealed.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

He has done nothing on the legislative side to repeal DADT.
And now asking for a stay of the judges order while they prepare an appeal is not exactly the best way to show that he wants the law repealed.

This is not exactly true - the Republicans in the Senate blocked the addition of DADT repeal to the Defense authorization bill. They did so by using the Filibuster, just as they have been with every bill this cycle. It's not accurate to say that the Dems and Obama haven't tried any legislative correction to this; they clearly have done that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know