Obama is so smooth, he even helps with the dishes.
Evidentially these are being sold in the UK (for some reason).
Printable View
Obama is so smooth, he even helps with the dishes.
Evidentially these are being sold in the UK (for some reason).
Reagan was a Union Buster. At the end of his term he had Alzheimers and no-one noticed. Company Man. Nancy was a bitch.
Dude, this is a positive trait. As you may remember he fired the illegally striking air traffic controllers. This in turn helped convince the Russians that he had some spine. I’m all for the right to unionize within the private sector (and they are free to strike), but if you work for the government that is a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Remarks and Q & A with reporters on the Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO) strike - YouTube
The point is that there are ways of assessing a Presidency, and yours is more biased than most, so I consider my own response was a balancing act: I know quite well how popular Reagan was, it is not in doubt, his election results proved it. There is also the compelling argument that in his second term he was more willing to do deals with the USSR than his advisers, and that it was this transformation of Reagan into a 'weak sister' that created the Neo-Cons: Kristol, Richard Pearle and the other founders of the Project for a New American Century to ensure that the next Republican President would not become a 'weak sister' but walk tall and carry a big stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001
Yes, Reagan got historic arms reduction agreements from Gorbachev, but by that time the USSR was in its death-throes anyway. Your 'weak sister' was 'standing up' to a failed state, it failed in Afghanistan, it failed in Poland, it failed in its own back yard. When I was active on the left in the UK, nobody I knew had any illusions about the USSR and it was an open secret that the Communist Party of Great Britain was financially corrupt even if the full details did not emerge until after 1989. There was a Trotskyist called Hillel Ticktin who used to write articles [mostly in a journal called Critique] on what a dump the USSR was and why it didn't work and was destined to collapse -nobody took any notice, but it was just one among many examples of a 'Leftist' who had no starry eyed romantic ideas about the USSR, whereas you seem to have such a glorious vision of Ronald Reagan -whose faults, in my opinion, outstripped whatever positives he had. You are still living with his legacy; just as we are living with the legacy of Margaret Thatcher in the UK.
Looked at in the context of their times, Carter was a better President than Reagan, in fact one of the finest Presidents of the 20th century, and certainly one of the most decent and honourable.
Hoover
Eisenhower
Nixon, Agnew
Ford
Reagan
Bush, Quayle
Bush, Cheney
Williard Mitt Etch-a-Sketch Romney(loser with money)
Wow BS your smooth too!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Reagan's greatest legacy was his ratcheting up of the "War on Drugs". There is no proof other than testimony, that the CIA, imported cocaine to fund the illegal war on democratic Nicaraugua. However many people believe this to be true, as the spread of the crack epidemic coincided with the war. What is easily documentable, is the amount of new laws, introduced, such as the expansion of minimum sentencing requirements for drug offences. The harsher sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine directly targeted the Black community. So the suburban user of powder, would have to 100 times the amount of the urban 'rock' form, to have the same prison sentence. Reagan's crack down was intrumental in making the US the world largest prison population. It is true, the following presidents continued those policies. But given Reagan's public stance on drugs, it is ironic that the CIA continued to support Manual Noriega, the Panama dictator, who was finally arreasted for major drug dealing the year after Reagan left office (1989), and sentenced to 45 years. Reagan's administration used Noriega as a go between in support of its war against the Nicarauguan goverment. So harsher punishments effecting the Black community, while protecing others from punishment. Was Reagan's achievment, that still has great repercussions today.
Here is a reference article to my facts.
War on Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cool-Not Cool
You are right, Obama is so suave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyShore
I bet she is a bitch who would take the beating and then go get him a beer after.
lol...they're marriage is heading for the 20 year mark...if you believe any of that, you've never been married.Quote:
Originally Posted by talldudeil
The problem with the so-called left. When Bush carried out drone strikes they denounced him. When Obama does it, well, they're silent....
If it was wrong under Bush it should be wrong under Obama....
Jeff Morley and Thom Hartmann discuss "the drone surge" - YouTube
My guess is that Obama is transitioning from our stategy of driving around in circles getting hit by IEDs to putting a big intelligence umbrella over the whole region. And that will be the US position for .....forever. Hopefully.
Ben: What would you do if you were Obama?
Sure, that way terrorism will also stay with us........forever. A balanced policy would do much more to create peace. But it's unlikely that the US will ever adopt one. Too much lobbying going on all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
No COUNTRY will ever declare war on the United States.
It is the Human Rights Advocate's job to make people aware of crimes against Humanity going on in the World. It is the Republican's job to criticize the President no matter what he does. It is Obama's job to actually be responsible for everything that goes on in the Middle East.
As Official Advisor to the President, I would advise him to build a couple AFB CITIES in Afghanistan and Iraq, that have tentacles that reach out from Pakistan to Palestine. Drones, CIA, spies, sattelites, DEA, Hillary, and a place to train troops in real situations, test new military equipment, and REMIND any serious terrorist groups that we LIKE chasing their ass. If you build a million dollar Mansion, you need to figure in the price of a big fence, and keep it maintained. Before 9-11 the US policy was to basically hope none of that hell would find it's way over here. That policy is over. What would you have Obama do? Ignore them?
No country will ever declare war on the United States? But isn't declaring war on other nations not just a US hobby?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
As for what I would have Obama do? I would love to see the US get out of our back yard. Agression has never solved anything.
That seems fairly short-sighted. It's happened before, it can happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Once again, our Commander-in-Chief has laid his balls on the table. In support those who dare fall in love. Romney, meanwhile, is on the phone asking what this means.
On my knees, yes, I'll mar:fuckin:ry you.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
LMFAO....you call that set up interview laying his balls on the table????? John Stewert isn't even buying that one. Man...you really are a sycophant , aren't you? Here's the reality ....his position was "evolving" for 3 1/2 years until he was forced out of the closet by Joe Biden. Note the political timing Einstein between the Biden revelation, and Barry's set up interview..... Joe Biden may be the dumbest guy on the planet, but he's the one who laid his balls on the table...not Barry. If you think Obama wanted this coming out party with 7 key swing states voting against gay marriage, you're incredibly naive...with all due respect.
And the problem with guys like you is not your position on gay marriage.....I think most can respect that even though they don't agree....but guys like you are never willing to extend that same respect to those with opposing views. Rather than try to convince them, you'd rather bash them over the head with pejoratives, which is probably a large reason why 41 States have laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and 30 States have voted that way on referendum. It's hard to bring someone around to your opinion while you're disparaging and disrespecting them. Witness West Virginia.
And here's an my take on the whole Osama thing....In the ad that Slick Willie made in an attempt to use the killing of Bin Laden for political gain ( which is fine by me, btw) Clinton says "suppose the Navy Seals had been captured or killed...the downside would have been horrible for HIM" (meaning Obama) ....Interesting take on the political risks, but what about the killed or captured Seals? Think it might have just been a little horrible for them too? It's always about Obama.
A big day for civil rights
President Obama's gay marriage support carries political risk, but he had no moral choice
By Joan Walsh
http://media.salon.com/2012/05/obama_joan-460x307.jpg
Make no mistake: President Obama’s decision to publicly endorse gay marriage carries serious political risk, though also moral reward. Every state gay-marriage ban referendum has passed, except one in Arizona that was rewritten and adopted on a second try. And in swing states, from North Carolina (which just banned both marriage and civil unions Tuesday) to Nevada to Virginia, the president’s stance could cost him votes.
The latest Gallup poll shows that public opinion has gotten a little cooler toward gay marriage in just the last year, though most Americans support it. The sad truth is, most Americans may back it, but those who oppose it have been far more motivated to cast votes based on their animus, so far anyway.
That said, it was the right and necessary thing for the president to do. Future generations will look back and wonder what took him so long. The president believes in the saying attributed Martin Luther King Jr., that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Despite his too-slow “evolution” on gay marriage, Obama knows the arc bends faster when we pull on it, and today he gave it a good tug.
Like Vice President Joe Biden, who clearly deserves credit for accelerating this public “evolution,” Obama cast his decision in personal terms, telling ABC’s Robin Roberts:I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.Cynics are already saying that Obama’s decision is pegged to big fundraisers in Hollywood and New York over the next few days. I honestly think the risk is higher than the reward, and the president made a personal decision. “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married” isn’t the most stirring call to justice, but it sounds honest to me.
I remember thinking Mayor Gavin Newsom was doing a politically dangerous thing when he began marrying couples at San Francisco City Hall in 2003. Then I went and watched the weddings – and I was converted to the notion that there can be no compromise on marriage rights. Fellow Democrats blamed Newsom for costing John Kerry the election the next November, and no one can say for certain that he didn’t. Karl Rove surely used gay marriage as a wedge issue in 2004, pushing ballot initiatives in swing states to beef up the GOP’s Christian right turnout. And yet once I saw real individuals joyous at their weddings – and later crushed when the wedding spree was ended by the courts – it became impossible for me to suggest they have to wait because the country isn’t ready to give them equal rights. After he signed the Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson famously told Bill Moyers “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.”
But no person of conscience would today suggest Johnson did the wrong thing. “I had assumed that civil unions might have been enough,” Obama told Roberts. He did not say how long ago he realized he was wrong; it’s enough that he realized it today.
By all accounts Joe Biden did bend the arc of justice a little, with what are being called spontaneous and unplanned remarks on “Meet the Press” Sunday supporting gay marriage. The Catholic Biden, like Obama, put his evolution in very personal terms. “The good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about is a simple proposition. Who do you love?” he told David Gregory. “Who do you love and will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out what all marriages at their root are about.”
Whether they are marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals. Jay Carney faced 50 gay-marriage questions in Monday’s briefing, after Secretary of Education Arne Duncan joined Biden in supporting gay marriage on “Morning Joe.” The White House’s brief effort to deny the importance of Biden’s statement was futile and they wisely dropped it. Then they did more than that – they endorsed it.
Obama’s move may be less risky than it feels right now: Public Policy Polling has found that folks who oppose gay marriage already think the president supports it, anyway. African-Americans are less likely to support gay marriage than other groups, yet it’s hard to imagine Obama’s stance depressing black support for him given everything else that’s at stake in 2012.
I also want to say a word on behalf of the advocacy community that pushed the president to take this step – even as fervent Obama supporters insisted they were dooming the president’s reelection bid with their demands. Activists and agitators make history. Leaders rarely move to claim risky but necessary territory on their own. Congratulations to all the voices who made this happen – and to the president, who must be relieved to be able to say publicly what we’ve known he’s believed privately for a long time.
guys like you are never willing to extend that same respect to those with opposing views
51% of Americans should not quote morals to 49% of Americans.
It's not ALL about Obama. I don't want a Goddam Etch-a-Sketch liar repeating the Bush years. Tell me one difference between Romney and Bush.
Romney is a mormon.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
(hmm, did I put too many M's in there... ?)
I think if Romney were, say, running as an Independent, as it were, he could be fairly moderate. He is NOT a social conservative. But he has to appeal to the Republican base.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
So, the problem is he has to appeal to a lot of religious crazies in the Republican Party. He has to placate them. Ya know, those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, those who are steadfastly opposed to gay marriage and abortion etc. etc. etc.
And he can't control them....
Obama and Romney have a lot of similitudes. Where do they part ways? Your guess is as good as mine.
I mean, on a simplistic level: every president has to appease international money markets.
There's what's called a virtual senate. Whereby investors and lenders take a moment by moment referendum on government policy. And if they view government policy as irrational -- meaning: caring about the people -- they simply attack the currency by capital flight... :) :) :)
Quoting, at fair length, from the American journalist Chris Floyd: "Both parties support empire, militarism, corporatism, exceptionalism, oligarchy, executive tyranny, torture and the shielding of torturers, indefinite detention, extrajudicial killing, regime change (covert, overt, by proxy), special ops, black ops, rendition, the drug war, the terror war, undeclared war, war crimes, the relentless expansion of the "National Security" apparatus, the militarization of police powers, slashing the social safety net, serving the needs of Wall Street and the One Percent, and so on and on and on."Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
http://www.chris-floyd.com/
Hell, omk, stop being reasonable and sane, it's really doing my head in lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
And I agree with you on Obama's position, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. On the other hand, during the Civil War, it was political and military calculation rather than moral principle which finally stirred Lincoln into making the emancipation proclamation, and while that was couched deliberately in ways to ensure that it's primary impact would fall on areas controlled by the south, in the end the results were profound and and immensely effective.
Maybe a pragmatic response to finding himself forced into a corner might have the same effect for Obama. Let's wait and see.
It's the middle of the night here, but let's hold further comment until we see what Fox and the main spokesmen of the GOP have to say on the subject before passing premature judgement - something all of us here are just too damn good at. :wiggle:
While to most people, the difference between Obama and Romney is like the difference between Country and Rock, behind the scenes there are plenty of differences. Like the difference between Ginsberg and Scalia, National Healthcare, War, Hurricanes, Brownies, Oil companies, the Future of all mankind. Have you forgotten Dick Cheney?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Mephistopheles himself.
LMFAO! Everyone knew knees would have to find a way to attack the president on this but he chose a pretty hilariously stupid way.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
Right, the reason so many states have passed marriage amendments is not because they want to deny civil rights to a minority of Americans that do icky things in the bedroom, no, no, not that, it's because us libruls didn't say please. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! In fact, in the 60's white Southerners actually would have been happy to extend civil rights to blacks, they totally wanted to, but those damn civil rights activists were just so damn pushy and kept insisting they were right that the Southerners had to literally let the dogs out (Mitt knows what I'm saying, woof woof!) and let the firehoses out and the billy clubs.
Yup, the problem is not intolerance, it's the uppity fags who demand their rights before we're comfortable. What about my feelings? I mean, it's your life but if it grosses me out to imagine you fucking, shouldn't I able to vote to take away your rights?
Pure homophobia is why those states voted against gay partnerships. And I'm afraid there are many religious bigots who promote this hatred of gays for their "unnatural" practices etc. After all its in the book. It takes a long time for people to overcome inbred and religiously fostered prejudices. Devout Muslems and Christians share this hatred of gay and transgendered people.
I do actually agree with OMK re the president on this. It was Joe Biden who had the guts to go public and this put the president in a position where he'd no choice but to say publicly what he may have privately felt for a long time. It may cause him some political damage. But equally some equivocating Middle ground voters may swing behind him on the issue.
The notion that the liberals should have been more polite to southern bigots is just ludicrous.
And re Hilary and the killing of Bin Laden. Well she was responding to a question about the political impact on the President - not the impact on the lives of the Seals and their families. So it is dishonest to use this to hammer Obama.
This.^Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
Fuck this "extending respect" bullshit. What kind of ass-kissy nonsense is that? It's no one's business, it never was, and it never will be. Christianity is a glorified cult with no basis in reality anyway. Waiting for these simpletons to become "comfortable" with something is a waste of precious time. And Obama can "evolve" all he likes. But it's none of his business either. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. It's pretty simple. No one tells these rednecks and hillbillies that they can't marry their underage cousins. So let them learn to mind their own business.
As the first black president, Obama has to be right on everything. Not now. 50 years from now. He's sowing seeds. For National Healthcare, he has taken the first step. For LGTB rights, he has taken the first step. Fifty years from now he will be looked back at as a visionary, because all the kids are cool with homos and healthcare is going to become more and more a cost issue, and we can't afford free service to every family that shows up with a sick kid to the hospital with no insurance. You can't have half the country with no credit.
You could not have found a better first black president than Barrack H Obama. Not even casting "24" .....He has to pull it off. He needs perfect perspective on everything, simply because he is the first black president.
You cannot get so far ahead of the parade that you can't hear the music. It's important that the Democrats can point to the Republicans as the BAD guys. No matter what party you're in, We, the people need to point the finger at someone, to shift any wrongdoing off ourselves.
:fu::fu: I'm pointing this finger at Nth Carolina!Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Romney: Gay couples should have right to adopt...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...AVGU_blog.html
Obama “evolves” on marriage:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/singleton/
I agree: "... don't marry a gay person." :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre
But it's important, I think, that the President of the United States comes out in favor of gay marriage.
It's a very big and positive step.
And, too, Romney has taken a stand:
Mitt Romney opposes same-sex marriage‎ (May 9, 2012) - YouTube
Obama, as a tactician, wants to appeal to libertarians with respect to gay marriage. (Albeit libertarians want government out of marriage.)
Libertarian David Boaz on Gay Marriage - YouTube
It's very important and long overdue. And ultimately it will be helpful for transsexuals as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
It's good for transsexuals. It's good for the country. It's historic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre