So, he'll be a one-termer and followed by Reagan? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Printable View
So, he'll be a one-termer and followed by Reagan? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
One could only hope!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Zombie Reagan wants brains - and tax cuts!
Not to start an off-topic debate or anything, but the government gets their money from the people, and the more money that the people have, the more money the government can get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
EDIT: And BTW, I am one of the few conservatives out there you will find who is NOT a fan of Reagan - not by any stretch. I admire his values, but I think he was off on too much. He was probably one of the best though.
I was jus' bein silly. :clown:
The Telegraph says certain 'sources' say the President was too tired not to snub the British Prime Minister.
For a guy that campaigned on 'restoring our alliances', using diplomacy to solve all the world's problems and all that, this is especially pathetic.Quote:
Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.
British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.
But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.
...
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly.
Bush didn't pull this kind of stunt (iirc) and his appointments, save for Harriet Miers, certainly went over better.
CR
That's a half-hearted excuse if I ever heard one. The real reason, of course comes later:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I guess that's what happens when you elect a political neophyte. :shrug:Quote:
They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.
It's kind of hard to imagine that at least someone in the White House didn't know the proper protocol for a state visit, but the alternative to ignorance is a deliberate snub of our closest ally and it's hard to imagine why Obama would do that.
In other Obama news, the fight to pass the Legalized Worker Intimidation Act, which is laughably called the "Employee Free Choice Act" begins. I think it's great the Democrats have their priorities straight. I mean, what could be more important right now than giving a big wet kiss to their union donors?
And NOBODY in the White House protocol or Dept. of State could have briefed anybody?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Possible, I suppose, but that's a surprising degree of negligence from a group that was so successful in image management during the campaign.
Are we sure it isn't Obama snubbing Brown in order to signal to a majority of the UK'ers (Brown has higher approval than Dubya did this past year, but I understand it isn't by much) and the current Labour Govt. that they should replace him?
What do our UK'er folks think?
Could be. But I think that kind of meddling would be considered very bad form. Like I said, the implications of it being a deliberate snub actually seem worse than it being incompetence. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Are we sure it isn't Obama snubbing Brown in order to signal to a majority of the UK'ers (Brown has higher approval than Dubya did this past year, but I understand it isn't by much) and the current Labour Govt. that they should replace him?
What do our UK'er folks think?
I wouldn't think so... mainly for two reasons...
one it isn't a given that Brown will not be re-elected so it would be counter productive to actively campaign for him to be voted out
two imagine the reaction in the US if a foriegn prime minister gave his support to an opposition candidate, US public would probably react badly to it, i don't think the uk public would mind quite as much but there would be some negative reaction towards it.
Personally i suspect that Brown was eager to be seen with Obama to help sure up support at home and was willing to squeeze himself into Obama's busy schedule...
And there is more: Mr. O pooh-pooh's UK 2001 gift, and blunders in gift exchange.
Dear British Friends and Staunch Allies:Quote:
... Well, eventually the ice breaks and America goes up and we pull that thing out of the ice and we sail it over to England and we return her in, like, 1850 something or other as a gift. Well, the Resolute is in service for England and, you know, it signifies our gift to England and we say, please forgive us for everything that we've gone through in the past 50, 75 years. We are brothers. The Resolute is a big deal. So when the Resolute is decommissioned, Queen Elizabeth decides, I'm going to take the wood and I'm going to make two desks. I'm going to make one for me and one for the president. This is as significant as France giving us the Statue of Liberty. So she takes this and she makes it into two desks. It's the desk that -- remember little JFK, Jr., he opens up the trap door and he looks, you know, through it? That's the USS Resolute desk. There's only two of them: One with the queen, one with us. FDR put that door there. This is such a historic desk. He put that door there so it would hide his wheelchair so nobody could see his wheelchair. The door is the only place where the seal has the eagle looking down at the arrows instead of the olive branches, okay?
So what does Gordon Brown do? He comes to meet with the president and he gives him a set of pens made from the wood of the USS Resolute to match the desk that should be in a museum. He gives him a matching set of pens. Barack Obama hands him a basket -- I'm not kidding you, hands him a basket of DVDs that he can't play...
Please let me apologise for this. I am so ashamed. We have kept our new leader so busy lately, right out of the gate, that we've failed to get him up to speed - I think no one has told him yet that He is the leader of the free world. We'll (and he'll) do better soon, I promise.
Sincerely,
The United States of America
While it is a little incompetent to give someone a present they can't use (the DVD's) in terms of its effect on the UK population im sure we'll get over it, infact im sure i could support our leaders giving each other more economical gifts. Thinking on it do our leaders really need to give each other gifts... they are wealthy men already....
Though i suppose i wouldn't want Gordon Brown 'snubbing' another leader in such a way.... it is more the uncaring attitude that comes across with it...
If its any consolation this snub by obama is making people question our special relationship and may push people more the way of further eu integration!
BTW how is this special relationship seen in the US, i always thought its was more of a UK term to describe our relationship with the US more seeing us a close ally, something like a more independent less controversial Israel, but some americans seem to see it as a special relationship also...
I think of Great Britain as a colder, less friendly version of Hawaii. You know, an important military staging area that also has some other stuff going on. Frankly, I think you should save yourselves a lot of bother and become the 51st state. We'll let the Queen stay on as a sort of semi-official celebrity if it will make you happy. You'll get two Senators out of the deal. Your tax burden would be slashed in half, but you'd lose your single-payer healthcare.
In keeping with the American tradition of having obscure cities be the capitol, we'd need you to change your seat of government from London to Milton Keynes.
Funny you describe it that way. Lotsa guys over here, smarter than me, describe it just that way: "like Israel, without the complications". LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I don't fancy myself speaking for the US, but I see it this way:
we left you, to be free of what we saw as religious oppression, but hung onto you for support, anyway. After years of that dependant status, we decided the price of that support was too high, in liberty restrictions and money matters, so complained. Those complaints having fallen on deaf ears (so we thought) we decided to divorce ourselves from you (a procedure we learned from you).
You objected to the divorce, and our proposed settlement terms - so we fought. Meanwhile, we wrote some pretty fancy, high-falutin' words about freedom and equality and creator's intent and self-determination. We won the fight when you lost interest.
Then, just to be sure it really was "over", we fought again a few years later, and you burned down the Boss's house - showing that you coulda kicked our butts if ya wanted to, but didn't. We settled for a minor after-treaty victory in Louisiana. You again, lost interest.
Time marched on. And we started to take those high-falutin' words seriously - and so did the rest of the world. And they, and you, and we, held us to them. So we fought a civil war over those "equal" and "freedom" words. And started to broaden our idea of just who was a "citizen", entitled to rights and privileges.
Meanwhile, in your land, you took notice, and started applying similar principles to your area. Pretty soon, it was almost a race to see who could be the free-est, most equalist, of the 2 of us.
Then some nutters on the continent got frisky, and you got involved. After much anguish, we realized we were pals now, united not only be an instinctive striving for freedom, but a seeming mutual tendancy to see the world as "free" or "not free", and to prefer the company of the "free".
Then it happened again on the continent, and after much more anguish (I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but: we'd rather not fight) we joined in, with you hosting millions of our warriors.
Since then (or maybe before), we've felt a special relationship with Britain; like an older 1st cousin; a bit odd for our taste, but always there in a tussel, covering our rear. We can only but be there whenever they need, too.
Obama Monday:Obama today:Quote:
On Monday, Obama issued a memorandum effectively negating Bush’s signing statements by telling agencies not to follow on them without consulting with the Justice Department in advance.
“There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused,” Obama’s directive said. “Constitutional signing statements should not be use to suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements.”
Quote:
After Obama signed the $410 spending bill that keeps the government funded until October, the White House released a statement outlining its take on the constitutionality of several of the bill's provisions.
Perhaps the most notable portion of the statement gives Obama room to reallocate money as he sees fit without abiding by the spending bill's requirement to first get approval from Congress
And George HW Bush went to a grocery store in the early 90s, saw an item scanner, and remarked how amazing it was and asked how long it had been in use and it turns out it had been around for the last, i dunno, 5 years. Get over it. So the president doesn't know his DVDs can't be played in the UK, Big Frakkin Deal, he probably also doesn't know Islamabad is the capitol of France.
Energy Corporations moving to Switzerland
So do we have to call "Big Oil" it's name in French or German?Quote:
Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration.
FBI Raid Obama appointee
Quote:
Federal agents this morning are searching the office Washington, D.C.'s Chief Technology Officer.
RIP America. :sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Well, that's where all of his class warfare rhetoric and demonizing gets us. These companies, ultimately, are going to look out for their best interests. They're not going to sit here and take it while the president engages in name-calling and threatens to put the economic screws to them. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Well, here's something I can agree on:
Obama's Drug Czar will Focus on Treatment instead of Incarceration
As a plus, it also gets the idiot Seattle police chief out of the state. He's anti-gun, but also got his gun stolen out of his car.Quote:
The White House said yesterday that it will push for treatment, rather than incarceration, of people arrested for drug-related crimes as it announced the nomination of Seattle Police Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske to oversee the nation's effort to control illegal drugs.
The choice of drug czar and the emphasis on alternative drug courts, announced by Vice President Biden, signal a sharp departure from Bush administration policies, gravitating away from cutting the supply of illicit drugs from foreign countries and toward curbing drug use in communities across the United States.
CR
I've been told Churchill looked quite fetching in a mumu...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
That's it I'm moving to Switzerland. Are the chics there hawt? Are there Muslims? Can I keeps my guns?
So I'm reading today that most everyone who opposed the spending bill filled with pork actually threw in their own projects because, to quote Dr Dre, "I gotta get mine." On one hand, why should only the
Democrats bring home some scrilla? On the other hand, saying you are opposed to something but you will do it if everyone else is doing it is sort of, um, lacking in the cajones department. It's the best of both worlds come re-election time.
Of course voting against it and not taking money for pet projects would allow one to completely resolve oneself of responsibility for future fiscal debt and claim moral superiority in future issues, but I guess not everyone can be Tom Coburn now can they? I wonder if Muskogee is proud of him, or if they will oust him next election for not getting them any bling.
to quote Dr Dre, "I gotta get mine."
It is a difficult choice for politicians no doubt, at what point do you abandon your philosphy and go with practicality... you are after all there to do the best for the people of your state... i guess i wouldn't be overly citical of those politicians taking a practical viewpoint...
There is something you can really admire about sticking to your guns though...
Commentary so far: I hope the stem cell issue results in scientists being able to regenerate spines (literally and metaphorically). He could use one (particularly with the string of broken promises thus far, what was that bit about ending the war in Iraq again? lol), so cant the republicans (I mean jindal and palin are the best they have now? lulz).
Other then that too soon to tell, the liberal police havent hunted me down yet for my NRA membership.
Oh yeah the belling aching over the spending. When he starts 2 wars, then cuts taxes in the middle and dosent include the costs in his budgets I'll bitch about it. IMHO he's a touch better then bush, at least hes incurring the debt on thing that will likely be built here not a 3rd world backwater that dosent want us there in the first place.
Were in debt and will be for a long time, I much rather have a new safe bridge then enuculate 100,000 africans against typhoid, or set up regimes in the middle east to counter balance Iran.
So far his grade from me is B (it would have been a C+ to B- but his budget inclusion of war costs got him bonus points).
Fundamentals of this economy are sound!
Quote:
The economy is fundamentally sound despite the temporary "mess" it's in, the White House said Sunday in the kind of upbeat assessment that Barack Obama had mocked as a presidential candidate.
One does love some good ol' Sunday politicking.Quote:
During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama's team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.
:laugh4:
Anyone else remember McCain being attacked from proposing to partially privatize veteran's healthcare? Well....
Obama mulls making vets foot bill for service injuries
In other news, Mexico has imposed tariffs on US goods after a trucking program was killed as part of the recent spending bill that was passed by congress and signed into law.
the trucking law should not have been killed. All the pooh-pooh about the trucks being dangerous to americans on the highways turned out to be unsubstantiated and ultimately false, and it had a hardly, if any, impact on American jobs. Now, if the trucks covered under this law were being used to smuggle immigrants or drugs, that would be another story, but I have heard nothing to indicate such, as all the mexican vehicles caught smuggling on american highways around here are illegal to begin with
the thing about the VA has been brewing for a few days now, but I wanted to wait for more info before I commented. I don't think it would pass Congress
The only reason I can think of for killing the Mexican truckers bill was a discussion I had with a trucker from California. He just dropped my parents' car off from San Diego. Guess what, we can't drive trucks there either, and we wouldn't be able to with the passage of this bill.
Quid pro quo. You want Luis driving a rig in Duluth? Let Bubba drive a rig in Guadalajara. Or quit your damn bitchin.
Understandable, but I bet the list of American truckers who want to foray into Mexico is a pretty damned short list.
Nonetheless, seems like thats how NAFTA has worked so far: illegal immigration and outsourcing to mexico, neither of which benefits american workers. It's a take-take situation on the part of Mexico. The difference in currency value ensures that. The only thing I could see American truckers wanting to haul through Mexico would be goods from outsourced manufacturing plants returning the product to the US, and even then why would the company pay an American to do it when they could get cheaper drivers down there?
Killing the law seems a bit protectionist, and really doesn't improve anything, but hey, if it makes the Mexican government angry I'm all for it.
That's the spirit! Boo international cooperation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Democrats like Jim Webb of Virginia give me a hard-on because they aren't liberals and, I hope, will keep the Obamas and Pelosis in check. Republicans like Tom Coburn give me a bigger boner because they stick to their principles, even if it means they won't get re-elected because they aren't bringing home the pork. I don't know what this has to do with the thread but I thought I'd say it anyway.
Conservative Dems and moderate Repubs are a good thing. Both parties become their ugliest, most useless selves when the fringes are allowed into the drivers' seat.
I find the argument for earmarks that its only 1% of the total bill price is hilarious. What an awesome way to do business....the bigger the price of the main body of the bill the smaller percentage the earmark will make up....no one would dare do 1 million of earmarks for a 4 million dollar bill, for a 4 mill you just do 40k, no fuss. But the more earmarks you want the more you need to spend altogether so theres plenty of reason to overspend: you don't want to look like you are overspending! It's all so clearz now!
There was this was a spending bill, it wasn't to allow for the trucks. What the bill did was cut funding for the program that was already in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Also, my understanding is that US trucks were allowed into Mexico along the lines of a similar pilot program that the US had, although I expect Mexico would have similarly ended their program as well. I can find passing references to that fact, but pretty much all Google results about US, trucks, and Mexico are all about the US ban and I can find little the talks about US trucks in Mexico with any specificity. If anyone can shed some more light on that, it'd be appreciated.
Yeah, hard to find any relevant info from the news sites (which dominate google). This little tidbit from Reuters refers to USDA data:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Suggesting .gov websites might reveal more.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
This isn't .gov, but records USDA-reported exports of various product from US > Mexico. Mostly "down" sadly for that week.
Maybe that stuff is shipped via boat, or train, or donkey cart; we don't know, so looking at dot.gov for guidance, we get:
DOTs press release (2007) touting that:
Then this 2007 worldnet article announces reciprocal 100 Mexican operators access to US roads:Quote:
Originally Posted by DOT pr
So, looks like 100 operators = 100 operators. Eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by worldnetdaily article
But now that's going away.
I hear you can make a good buck trucking guns down to Mexico. 2000 , according to Mexico, cross the border each day and all fly into the hands of the cartels. 2000 a day, and most of them assault rifles/ Thats 740k per year, and seems to me to be vastly exagerrated
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4855001.shtml
Devastatin' Dave's worst nightmare:
So Obama made a joke about the special Olympics, in relation to his bowling skills:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=301603
A bowler for the special olympics, who's bowled five perfect games since 2005, says he can beat the president "easily":
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
But really, a special oylmpics joke? That's pathetic.
CR
All too common as a kind of joke actually. Parent's joking at the bus stop when the "short bus" drives by; comments made when the local "donate your car" charity that provides services for such folks comes on the radio; etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Obama's joke was tasteless, but far from uncommon.
It does serve to reinforce that, when off "script," he is prone to a few malapropisms and verbal gaffes. Dubya was even more cumbersome with the off-the-cuff stuff, but Obama seems determined to catch up.
Give him time- it's only been a couple of months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
In other news, the CBO now says the Obama deficit projections were way off:
More and more, I'm beginning to look back wistfully at the Bush administration... I never thought that would happen. :wall:Quote:
Deteriorating economic conditions will cause the federal deficit to soar past $1.8 trillion this year and leave the nation wallowing in a sea of red ink far deeper than the White House had previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said today.
In a new report that provides the first independent analysis of President Obama's budget request, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that the administration's agenda would generate deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade -- $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his spending plan just one month ago.
He made a retard joke. Everyone makes retard jokes. Get off your horses.
Ahaha! The republicans are the PC party now!Quote:
But really, a special oylmpics joke? That's pathetic
With all due respect: that's not true. Children, who don't know any better, do. Some adults, who should know better, do. But at least 50% of America doesn't. Certainly parents and relatives of retarded persons don't. Millions of Special Olympians and their supporters don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The Most Powerful Man on Earth, the Leader of the Free World, The President of the United States, shouldn't. And so should not, we.
:soapbox:
Sorry for the diversion. :bow:
He made a gaffe, a dumb joke. There is plenty to crucify the man over besides his one off color joke. 50% You and I both know thats wrong. Kurki I want you to think back all of your 50 odd years and think hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Very dumb in front of a live audience? Yes. Is Obama holding some grudge against the mentally retarded? No he's not.
Clapping for a bowling score of 129 is like giving someone "olympic gold" for running not particularly fast. That's the joke... :wings:
I take all your points, and nod agreement. Even my President does - realizing his insensitivity, he phoned the head of Spec Olympics personally from AF1 to make amends, and the WH issued a statement in less than 24 hours. Afterall, it's obvious he was trying to make fun of his own self, a worthy goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I don't wanna crucify him. I just don't want us - you and me, and our readers, thinking that "tard jokes" are OK, cuz, heck even Obama does it, on national TV.
I don't get up on my soapbox very often (at least, I hope not); this seemed like a good time to do it though; because making fun of folks because of their mental capacity, physical capacity, skin color, where they were born... all seems un-American to me, in this place where we've proved last year that anybody can become the head guy, or get rich, or invent a new religion or whateverthehell they wanna do or be.
I know this site is international, not just American. It just bugged me a bit to have the gaff disregarded as "everybody does it, so get over it."
Fair enough
And this is after he threatened a reporter in his FIRST conference as President. So much for freedom of press. You remember how viciously Bush was grilled by the press? How would people react if he had treated them like Obama treats the press when he gets a few sissy questions? I am telling you, this guy has dictator written all over him.
:help::unitedstates:
I literally lol'ed :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Why? I do not mean the Stalin type of dictator. He will be the kind of dictator where he stifles free speech, and uses the press to create a cult of personality around himself. When there is only one opinion out there, there is only one thing to believe, and that is what Obama says you should believe. He'll control the education system, so he won't need a massive military, because children will learn about he world according to Obama. All anyone will see on TV and in newspapers is what Obama wants them to. Meanwhile his massive civilian sector of the military that he promised he would create will be his brown shirts who will bully everyone into doing what he says. (kind of like the ACORN groups he trained in Chicago to bully bankers and politicians) As it is people already are scared of ridiculing him, because they know that everyone they know will rip them apart for it. Everyone I know who voted for someone other than Obama, when they are asked turn red, look down, and try to get out of the question. The liberal media has made people feel ashamed if they do not support Obama (not to mention you are a racist and right-wing wackjob if you do not). Everytime I tell a liberal that I did not vote for Obama I have to sit through the never-ending speech "Do you even read anything? Do you even know what is going on? Bush was like Hitler, and McCain is just a puppet of that lunatic Palin who wanted to control all of the world with her mental Christian regime! Blah-blah-blah". It has gotten to the point where I (and I got a pretty good stomach for debate) usually just tell people that they use secret ballots for a reason. I know a lot of girls especially who felt so ashamed that they did not support Obama that they just did not vote at all, because they did not want to be the bad guys. That is a product of the liberal control of the education system and media, just wait till Obama gets more control.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
(Before you laugh CA, tell me why it is that people in America feel ashamed of themselves and afraid of what others will think if they do not support Obama? Is that a product of fair media and education?)
Hilarious! When is he going to move us out into the countryside for forced collectivization? When will private property be abolished? When will the Christians be packed off to death camps, since we all know the Great Leader is a crypto-Mulsim? When will good-hearted Americans have their guns and God taken away?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Thanks for helping me start my morning with a laugh.
lol, starting your morning off with a personal attack I see sir moderator! I said I did not think he would be a Stalin type of dictator, but simply that he would stifle out all other opinions and push his agenda's through the government. Did you read my post by any chance? Also, I see how you associate God and guns, like Christians are some wackos. The last two posts I have seen you make have not only been void of any substance Lemur, but they have been sarcastic and cutting, and made unfair and untrue associations. I have said outright many times that I have disagreed with other people's opinions very deeply, but have been polite about it without attacking them or the followers of their beliefs in general. I have showed the basic courtesy that should be afforded to another member on an internet forum and disagreed with them without disliking them or cutting them down. I think a moderator should set a better example than what you have been setting Lemur. :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
(and I am talking mostly about your post in the media thread, but I think this one is representative of much the same attitude and willingness to show your distain for other members.
EDIT: BG does not agree with me and does not like me that much either. He often is extremely itchy with the trigger when I am involved and moderates in a way that I believe is way too selective, but he at least treats members with respect. While I disagree with BG on most issues, and think his warnings often unfair, I respect him for at least acting professional about it. (Oh dear, did I just get TWO of the Backroom mods mad at me in the same post. :P lol, warnings incoming. :P)
I'm still laughing... I'm screenshotting this thread so I don't ever lose it :laugh4:
lol, is it so funny that someone thinks that Obama is corrupt, yet it isn't when thousands of liberals believe in a massive conspiracy between Bush and oil companies to invade the Middle East so that they can get rich? And that Dick Cheney is trying to run the world and using Bush as a puppet, and that the US manufactured AIDS as part of a racist conspiracy to wipe blacks out, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Point-of-order: Lemur does not Moderate the backroom. He has the same rights, privileges and restrictions as any other Member.
Backroom asigned Moderators are: Banquo's Ghost, Ser Clegane, Papewaio & Seamus Fermanagh.
Still, he is a moderator, and his posts should be respectfull and set an example for other posters. I have never treated Lemur disrespectfully before, I do not think it is fair that he treats me so, esp when he is a moderator.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I'm sorry if I'm coming off disrespectful, Vuk, but you don't do yourself any favors by playing the victim card early and often. In the Backroom I'm another Orgah like any other. If you think I should no longer be a mod, by all means, start a petition. I would miss the hefty paycheck we get, but I'll still find a way to make ends meet, even without my Org money ....
Ah, the victim thing. Vuk, I made light of the ideas you expressed, not you. There is exactly zero evidence that President 44 wants to be a dictator or is angling to be such, so yes, those ideas are humorous. I found it equally ridiculous when left-wing moonbats went on about Bush wanting to be dictator, and let's face it, a better argument could be made for President 43, since he declared that he had an unreviewable right to detain and torture enemy combatants on the field of battle (and the field of battle was everywhere, and the duration of the war was forever, and an enemy combatant was anyone).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Just because I find your talking points ridiculous doesn't mean I am attacking you, unless your personal integrity and identity is somehow wrapped up in Sean Hannity's rhetoric.
Word for word, laughing so hard there were tears squirting out of my eyes. Oh, so he won't be a "Stalin type of dictator," that's a relief. Chavez type, then? Khmer Rouge type? Mussolini type? I'm working very hard not to violate the prime corollary of Godwin's Law here ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I was parroting the extremist rhetoric which seems to have you in its grip. Don't be a dullard, mistaking parody for reality—you have read The Onion on occasion, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
If the quality of my posts is sub-par, I'm very sorry; if I've verged off into bad behavior, I've no doubt I'll get my knuckles rapped by one of the Backroom mods. It's happened before and doubtless will happen again. (I think I am the only Mod to ever put on the robes while still carrying a warning point. Thanks, DevDave!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
That said ... if you want to have an intelligent debate, perhaps you should start from a less hysterical premise? Throwing out the most extreme rightwing domination fantasies hardly seems likely to provoke a measured, logical response from those who disagree with you. Sometimes laughter really is the best response, no matter how little you appreciate it.
Hey, like I said, start a movement to de-frock me. Go for it. Nobody says we have to be mods forever, and if I'm past my prime, by all means, bring it to the other mods' attention and turn me back into a Member. Just think of the fun I can have without these robes ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Anyway, if you really, honestly believe that Obama is planning to become a dictator, then back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far your posts have consisted of bare assertions with no evidence. No links, no articles, no statistics, no legislation, nothing. You simply assert the improbable and then run crying "victim!" when I make light of it. If you want to make a real, evidential case that Obama is planning to unleash the brownshirts on America, then make the case.
As the gangsters say in the movies, come heavy or go home.
To reiterate what makes me think that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
A: His corrupt background in Chicago that including training ACORN volunteers to bully politicians and bankers (Hannity did a special on it, look it up ~;))
B: The left-wing press and education system's worship for him, and stigmatizing of anyone who does not support him.
C: His attempts to intimidate any reporters who give him questions that are in anyway challenging.
D: His promise to create a massive civilian sector of the military. It has been done often throughout history, always with the same result and the same aim. I see no reason to think this will be any different. Obama has never given a satisfactory answer as to why this needs to be created.
F: His dirty election policies ring of anything but a fair player.
First and foremost, I think you're suffering from a misunderstanding of what the word dictator means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
A: Plenty of politicians have come out of Chicago. None have yet attempted to assume total power over the United States. Sean Hannity can say what he likes, and run as many specials as he pleases; he's not a reliable source.
B: This is what's really getting up your nose. Your classmates and profs are all rabidly pro-Obama, and in the small, closed world of a University, it probably feels like you aren't allowed to say otherwise. Welcome to the wonderful world of academia. Ideas get entrenched, groupthink takes over, and relatively immature undergrads don't know how to have a civil debate. This is not uncommon. Irritating? Sure. Stifling? probably. Signal of an imminent dictatorship? Uh, no.
C: It's hard not to answer this one with a joke, 'cause it's so out there. "Intimidate any reporters who give him questions that are in any way challenging." ORLY? Did you watch the most recent presser? He got plenty of edged questions, and I didn't notice any intimidation going on, beyond the usual fawning that reporters do over powerful people. You're going to need to provide a source for this one.
D: Source, please.
E: You skipped E. This must mean something.
F: "Dirty election policies." What does that mean? You mean he ran a dirty campaign, in some notable way dirtier than the usual Presidential race? Worse than Kennedy v. Nixon? Worse than Bush v. McCain, or Bush v. Gore? Once again, you assert without backup. Source, link, gimme something. Otherwise this is like boxing a cloud.
Here's an interesting article about how the leftwing Dems are edgy and restless, largely because they are incapable of exerting the sort of control over their party that the rightwingers are able to hold over the Repubs: (warning, contains polling data and may cause statistical arousal for CountArch)
In cumulative Pew data for 2008, Kohut says, only one-third of self-identified Democrats described themselves as liberals; the rest identified as moderates or conservatives. For Republicans the proportions were reversed: two-thirds of Republicans considered themselves conservatives, while only one-third identified as moderates or liberals. Gallup's findings are similar: in their cumulative 2008 data, just 39% of self-identified Democrats described themselves as liberals, while 70% of Republicans identified as conservatives.
Looking at Obama's actual vote in 2008 reinforces the story. According to the Edison/Mitofsky Election Day exit polls, liberals provided only 37% of Obama's total votes. Moderates (50%) and conservatives (13%) provided far more. By contrast, conservatives provided almost three-fifths of John McCain's votes, with moderates contributing only about one-third and liberals a negligible 5%.
The bottom line is that, compared to Republicans, Democrats are operating with a much more diverse electoral coalition-and one in which the party's ideological vanguard plays a smaller role. That's one reason why in a Pew post-election survey, nearly three-fifths of Democrats said they wanted the party to move in a more moderate (rather than liberal) direction, while three-fifths of Republicans said they wanted the party to move right. The parties "have a difference in our bases," says Jim Kessler, vice president of Third Way, a group that works with centrist Democratic Senators. "Certainly the most loyal part of the Democratic base is going to be self-identified liberals, but numerically moderates are a bigger portion of the coalition, so there is going to be some tension."
Am I the only one who sees Bush and Obama as the same man on opposite ends of the spectrum?
Can you expand on that thought, Strike? Which spectrum? Opposite how? Give us a little more meat to chew on, please.
Obama is doing very little to pander to the far left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
-Both men were seen as under qualified
-Both men are seen by the other side as being "radical"
-Both men are seen as not really in control
-Both men are wholly convinced they are right
-Both men are prone to gaffes
-Both men are seen as wanting to destroy The American Way.
It just seems like both are polarizing figures who are wholly convinced they have all the answers
And Dubya did zip for fiscal conservatives, darn little for religious conservatives, and had to be kicked, prodded and thumped into naming a constructionist judge to the court instead of a Texas crony. You could draw a parallel here. Even to the respective fringes of the opposition party frothing over the watered-down effort both men made in their respective "righty" and "lefty" agendae.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Just how much control was the conservative side of the GOP able to exert when they held power in the government? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
CR
Yes...I don't have a clear picture of what's far right on the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But strike, 4 of these relate to how the person is seen, not who they are, one is pointless (gaffes) and the other is a requirement for anyone who is going to put the effort in to become president.Quote:
-Both men were seen as under qualified
-Both men are seen by the other side as being "radical"
-Both men are seen as not really in control
-Both men are wholly convinced they are right
-Both men are prone to gaffes
-Both men are seen as wanting to destroy The American Way.
The comparison of bush and obama seems to be that they are both politicians, and that they are both moderates in their own party. But, you know, most people consider the parties to be rather different...boils down to you saying "He's a democrat and he's a republican! So they are the same!"
:strawman3:
Enough to make absurdities like the Terry Schaivo case an issue of national governance. Oh, without a doubt President 43 used the religious right as something to wipe his bottom with, except when he needed their votes. But I think the polling data stands as an interesting differentiator between the two parties, no matter how you want to spin in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
More thoughts on this subject:
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck have far more power in the Republican Party (it sometimes seems to include veto power) than Klein, Lee, and Moore have in the Democratic Party. The views of right-wing commentators in the grip of the paranoid style (Obama is a stealth radical, the Democrats are imposing socialism) are much closer to mainstream conservative and Republican belief than the views of their counterparts on the left (the levees in New Orleans were blown up by the government, the White House had something to do with 9/11) are to mainstream liberal and Democratic belief. The reasons are complex, but I would list these: the evangelical and occasionally messianic fervor that animates a part of the Republican base; the atmosphere of siege and the self-identification of conservatives as insurgents even when they monopolized political power; the influence of ideology over movement conservatives, and their deep hostility to compromise; the fact that modern conservatism has been a movement, which modern liberalism has not.
This is not to say that the more destructive forms of populism and outright paranoia can’t appear on the left. They have, they do, and they will, especially in times of extreme distress like these. It’s only to say that the infection has been more organic to the modern right.
Jim Webb's courage v. the "pragmatism" excuse for politicians
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
An interesting article--I think most people who follow politics will agree that their immediate reaction to "their guy" not standing up for the right thing is that they are being "pragmatic" and that "that's how you have to play the game". At least that's what mine is.
I can see it being a good idea when you are giving bipartisanship an honest try. But I hope Obama's numbers start to tank if he keeps choosing to answer softball questions like "will legalizing marijuana help the economy" rather than "should we reform the war on drugs and the prison system".
Ah, Jim Webb. I'm glad he got elected.
Wired online has an article on how the Obama administration is refusing to release details on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, citing National Security reasons.
More info here:Quote:
President Barack Obama came into office in January promising a new era of openness.
But now, like Bush before him, Obama is playing the national security card to hide details of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated across the globe.
The White House this week declared (.pdf) the text of the proposed treaty a "properly classified" national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.
"Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full," wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House's Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The national security claim is stunning, given that the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the "classified" information.
In early January, the Bush administration made the same claim in rejecting (.pdf) a similar FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
If ratified, leaked documents posted on WikiLeaks and other comments suggest the proposed trade accord would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.
In his first days in office, Obama publicly committed himself to transparency, instructing government agencies to err on the side of public access and divulge information whenever possible under the Freedom of Information Act. Obama recently released a trove of documents relating to the Bush administration's rationale for torture of enemy combatants and other abuses.
At the same time, though, Justice Department lawyers have been arguing in court that the "state secrets privilege" should bar lawsuits over the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html
and also here:Quote:
A June 2008 memo (PDF) from the International Chamber of Commerce, signed by pro-copyright groups, says: "intellectual property theft is no less a crime than physical property theft. An effective ACTA should therefore establish clear and transparent standards for the calculation and imposition of effective criminal penalties for IP theft that...apply to both online and off-line IP transactions." Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for "criminal penalties for IP crimes, including online infringements."
Last fall, two senators--Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.)--known for their support of stringent intellectual property laws, expressed concern that the ACTA could be too far-reaching.
A shame. So much for real openness.Quote:
Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information. So far, the response from the government had been "sorry, we always negotiate these things in secret, so we'll keep doing so." At one point, even the ACTA negotiators held a closed-door meeting and then released a press release saying they discussed being more transparent, but haven't actually followed through.
CR
Thanks Sasaki, that was a good read. I voted against Webb, reluctantly, based on party loyalty the last time. If he continues in this vein, I doubt they'll field a GOPer who I would vote for in preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Yes, and that's exactly the point the author was making--when a politician is willing to stake his career on an issue, people will take notice and minds can be changed. That's what being a leader is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
A minor note about those prison numbers if anybody is interested. The US have comparable conviction numbers compared to the rest of the Western world, but the punishments are much longer. :book:
Sasaki where was that article from pls I need to send it to some people.
Salon.com opinion piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
That's a good article. Prison reform is definitely coming to my State, New York. However, it's more of a budget issue than any sense of leadership. The "Rockefeller Drug Laws" are to be repealed and a more viable alternative for some offenders will be enacted, but nobody really has said what that is. A program that I've been working in for years, Shock Incarceration , is one such alternative.
Another good reason for term limits. Take the worry out of getting re-elected and maybe some politicians can find the will to do the right thing.Quote:
Yes, and that's exactly the point the author was making--when a politician is willing to stake his career on an issue, people will take notice and minds can be changed. That's what being a leader is all about.
Seems like a tricky issue though. If you give them more than one term, they will still probably act the same way until their last term. And if you only give them one term, then who do we elect president? Someone who has served on term in the state senate and one term in the US senate? I also worry that with only one term, they will have the tendency to make out like bandits with corporate "gifts" while they still can, with retirement looming. And when you get an actual good guy, he won't be there for long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
I don't think you can legislate a solution, especially when the problem is with the legislature. The point needs to be hammered home to more people: being "pragmatic" is usually an excuse.
I like the way Virginia imposes limits on the governor, no consecutive terms. Keeps the governor from spending half his time in office running for reelection, and the electorate gets a good chance at reviewing the results of his/her prior session in office in a long-term sense.
Webb is a solid Virginia Democrat, I'm happy with my choice. :yes:
Haven't seen it mentioned in any other threads, so here is the WaPo's headliner from Sunday's paper:
Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
While all of this was pretty much known/expected, hopefully this will kick the Obama administration to get the ball moving on bringing some charges against the former administration officials behind this disgrace. Yoo and Addington at the least need to face the music for this.