Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
obama-abe.jpg


Obama As Lincoln Comparison Shows No Sign of Abating
 
I wonder what Bolton and others think of themselves now that Secretary Clinton had a blood clot that could have killed her. Guess she was faking that too.
 
Obama introduces Hagel, Brennan as nominees for Defense, CIA
Los Angeles Times | January 7, 2013 | 10:39 AM

President Obama today announced that he would nominate Chuck Hagel, a Republican former senator from Nebraska, to be secretary of Defense, and tapped top advisor John Brennan to be the new head of the CIA.

Heralding Hagel as a "champion of our troops," and Brennan's "invaluable perspective,"Obama lauded both of his nominees and paid tribute to outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and acting CIA Director Michael Morell in an announcement at the White House.


Hagel is a real solid pick. Anyone that opposes him by mentioning loyalty to other countries should be suspect for failing their oath of office.
 
The first question we should always ask when it comes to America's national security is, "what is best for Benjamin Netanyahu and The Likud Party?"
 
mediaite.com

Huckabee Slams Obama’s Own ‘War On Women’: ‘So Much Testosterone’ In The Cabinet And ‘So Little Estrogen’

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee blasted President Obama and other Democrats for waging their own “war on women” while they were criticizing Republicans for the same thing during election season. “But now, a lot of those females who supported Barack Obama are scratching their heads and they’re saying ‘Woah! How come there is so much testosterone in the Obama cabinet and so little estrogen?’” Huckabee said.

“Because if you look around, all of these high powered appointments that he is making are all white guys,” he added.

According to Huckabee, many Americans believed that Republicans were waging a war on women because Obama received more of the female vote than Mitt Romney. Huckabee sarcastically noted that Obama vowed to provide women with “contraceptives and free abortions” but “never promised women would have seats of significance at the table of power.”

“But don’t worry about positions of authority,” Huckabee continued. “They shouldn’t be asking for such things.”

The president has been criticized from both sides for filling important cabinet positions with, thus far, only white males. Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher noted in a recent column,

“The White House points out that 43% of White House positions are held by women, and Sen. Kerry is currently being vetted to replace a national hero for women, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That doesn’t mean that the President should get a pass on letting Susan Rice bow out, or on learning a lesson from it. His willingness to take heat for a white, male, Republican nominee says something about why he wouldn’t do the same for Susan Rice.”

Others, however, are supportive of Obama’s choices, including a recent MSNBC panel where host Alex Wagner opined, “It must be said, [President Obama] has a fairly decent record given the fact that there are eight women in his Cabinet at present and three of his Cabinet members are minorities.”

Mediaite’s Noah Rothman noted the panel “displayed remarkable intellectual dexterity by finding any number of things to blame for that condition in the White House other than Obama himself.”

h/t POLITICO
 
Giglio bows out of inauguration over sermon on gays

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Editor


(CNN)–In the face of withering criticism over a sermon he apparently delivered on homosexuality in the 1990s, the Rev. Louie Giglio has withdrawn from giving the benediction at President Barack Obama's inauguration.

Giglio informed inauguration officials Thursday morning of his decision to withdraw from the ceremony, an inauguration official told CNN.

"I am honored to have been invited by the president to give the benediction at the upcoming inauguration on January 21," Giglio said in a statement delivered to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee. "Though the president and I do not agree on every issue, we have fashioned a friendship around common goals and ideals, most notably, ending slavery in all its forms."

"Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda a focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.

Giglio, a pastor and the leader of the Passion Movement, was chosen to deliver the benediction because he's a "powerful voice for ending human trafficking and global sex slavery" and due to his work in mobilizing young people in that effort, an inauguration official said earlier in the week when the reverend's selection was first announced.

Criticism over the selection swirled after the liberal website Think Progress posted a sermon that it said Giglio gave in the mid-1990s, a speech the site called "vehemently anti-gay."

A spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee said the committee was "not aware of Pastor Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural."

"As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans," said PIC spokeswoman Addie Whisenant.

In an audio copy of the sermon posted on the Think Progress website, a voice identified as that of Giglio's called homosexuality a sin. "That's God's voice. If you want to hear God's voice, that is his voice to this issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear."

"If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle... homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God."

The recording continues: "The only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been ingrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus."

"We've got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me... it's not easy to change, but it is possible to change," he can also be heard saying during the sermon.

Giglio is a rising voice in evangelical Christianity. Last week, the Passion conference, which he founded, wrapped up its annual event for college students in Atlanta, with more than 60,000 students attending and vowing to end global slavery. They raised $3 million for charities that work to stop slavery and aid its victims.

Giglio said Thursday that he and his team don't feel "it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing; thus I respectfully withdraw my acceptance of the president's invitation."

"I will continue to pray regularly for the president, and urge the nation to do so. I will most certainly pray for him on Inauguration Day," Giglio's statement to the White House continued.

"Our nation is deeply divided and hurting, and more than ever need God's grace and mercy in our time of need," it concluded.

Giglio took to his church blog Thursday to further explain his position to his congregants at Passion City Church in Atlanta.

"The issue of homosexuality (which a particular message of mine some 20 years ago addressed) is one of the most difficult our nation will navigate. However, individuals' rights of freedom, and the collective right to hold differing views on any subject is a critical balance we, as a people, must recover and preserve," he wrote.

He asserted that his main goal as a pastor was to love people.

"I'm confident that anyone who knows me or has listened to the multitude of messages I have given in the last decade would most likely conclude that I am not easily characterized as being opposed to people - any people. Rather, I am constantly seeking to understand where all people are coming from and how to best serve them as I point them to Jesus."

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Giglio's decision to withdraw was the right one.

"Participants in the inaugural festivities should unite rather than divide. Choosing an affirming and fair-minded voice as his replacement would be in keeping with the tone the president wants to set for his inaugural," Griffin said in a statement.

Giglio represents a new type of evangelical leader who "doesn't like to get involved in the culture war because it blurs the larger points he wants to make," said Michael Cromartie, the vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

"What I want to remind his critics is he's not being named to a Cabinet position," Cromartie said. "He was being asked to deliver a prayer. All sorts of people deliver prayers who we don't agree with on a number of issues."

"It's unfortunate that this kind of political correctness doesn't allow people who are doing great work to pray at inauguration," he added.
 
According to Huckabee, Obama used charges of a Republican "war on women" and promises of "contraceptives and free abortions” to get women to vote for him, but "never promised women would have seats of significance at the table of power."

“But don’t worry about positions of authority,” he sarcastically continued. “They shouldn’t be asking for such things. Let's put it in words he'll understand. More hos, less pimps.”

:huh:
 
“But now, a lot of those females who supported Barack Obama are scratching their heads and they’re saying ‘Woah! How come there is so much testosterone in the Obama cabinet and so little estrogen?’” Huckabee said.

Yeah, you know what else this particular woman hates, Huckabee? When people presume to speak for others the way you are.

I want Obama to hire people who can do their job. That is all I ask. I couldn't care less about their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Just be good at what you do.
 
I want Obama to hire people who can do their job. That is all I ask. I couldn't care less about their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Just be good at what you do.

I'm not necessarily unhappy with his choices. However, there are males and females (and whites and other minorities and straights and gay/bisexual, etc.) who are excellent at what they do. So I do care in principle about the makeup of those who will have authority or those who will have influence as opposed to being a support staff. It can be troubling when all the "good" happen to be the demographic that has always had the authority and the influence. It perpetuates itself as the norm and continues the perception of others being somehow lesser than.

There are only a handful of "bests" out there. I don't want tokens. But if you're choosing between good and good, it doesn't hurt to mix it up a little so we are used to broader expectations and choices.

The President should be able to choose his Cabinet. I was pleased when he chose Hillary as Secretary of State and I'm not outraged or anything. But it's always wise to watch when women and minorities are consistently overlooked, no matter who's doing the overlooking.
 
Oh, yeah, I can certainly agree with all of that. I'm definitely supportive of seeing more diversity in our government, too-it'd be incredibly refreshing and might actually give us some more positive change for all demographics that aren't straight white Christian men. Just that I think Obama's picks are mainly just focused on their experience more than anything else at this point.

And I just think it's laughable that the Republicans are suddenly all concerned about and sensitive to what women think about certain issues. Incidentally, I wonder if Huckabee realizes that he seems to be supporting affirmative action (Romney was, too, with his whole "I went out and found some more women for our workplace" thing he talked about during one of the debates)? Isn't that a Republican no-no?
 
And I just think it's laughable that the Republicans are suddenly all concerned about and sensitive to what women think about certain issues. Incidentally, I wonder if Huckabee realizes that he seems to be supporting affirmative action (Romney was, too, with his whole "I went out and found some more women for our workplace" thing he talked about during one of the debates)? Isn't that a Republican no-no?

Faux Republican outrage vs. genuine Democrat indifference. So encouraging.
And the fight goes on.:D
 
"Visceral hatred has a political consequence, and the political consequence is that over time it will make it harder for those governments to say yes to the United States," Boyle told HuffPost Live host Ahmed Shihab-Eldin. "Our longer-term counter-terrorism cooperation with Yemen and Pakistan is an extraordinarily important thing. Those governments face domestic political costs. And if it is stirring visceral hatred, and it gets to the point where those governments can't say yes, that's a problem for us over the longer term."

Michael Boyle: 'Visceral Hatred' Of Drones Undermines U.S. Foreign Policy In Long Term (VIDEO)

I know the media here is focused on the budget, the fiscal cliff and so forth, but there needs to be coverage of the drones. Obama is using them a lot and few Americans know about it or even why he is.
 
Fully agreed on that. I've never really been supportive of the whole drone program. I get that it's partially to help keep our soldiers safer-the drones do the more dangerous stuff and all that-but it's technology. And technology can still mess things up. And our soldiers can still be in danger even with the drones around, and letting these drones do all the dirty work often seems to absolve us of any responsiblity for anything war-related. It distances us too much from the actual situation at hand.

I know we have to continue to have interaction with other countries because our policies have an effect on them and vice versa-we can't shut ourselves off from the rest of the world altogether, nor should we. But it'd be great if our interactions with other countries became less violent in general, and if we could pull our troops out of the wars we're currently still engaged in in some form or another and find other means to help our allies and other places that are struggling.
 
WASHINGTON -- A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming cabinet.
The report, by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials -- not just the president -- may order the killing of “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S.
“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” states the Justice Department white paper quoted by Isikoff.
The 16-page memo, given to Congress in June, is not the final Office of Legal Counsel memo that news organizations have sued to obtain. But it offers plenty of insight into the government’s justification for killing American citizens in overseas drone strikes.

DOJ Drones Paper: Obama's Second-Term Cabinet, Agenda Faces New Scrutiny

I'm not comfortable with this at all, especially if these Americans may not be an actual threat to the country. What happend to guilty until proven innocent?

While I usually roll my eyes at the Obama conspiracies that he plans to make himself dictator, these reports do not help to stop such beliefs. Meaning, while I truly don't believe he is planning to be our country's first dictator, these drone operations make me wonder what really is going on in Washington.
 
He's just continuing along the same lines as all our other presidents. While I don't see us becoming a dictatorship, I do think we are moving to a hybrid of sorts.

We'll still have more freedom than other countries, but we'll also act in ways that goes against what our core beliefs stood for.

I'm not sure it's really a bad thing, but an evolution of the world in which we all live in.
 
We'll still have more freedom than other countries, but we'll also act in ways that goes against what our core beliefs stood for.

I'm not sure it's really a bad thing, but an evolution of the world in which we all live in.

Just out of curiosity, which "core beliefs" do you see as disposable in the name of societal evolution?
 
Didn't our government push through the Patriot Act? Do we not hold prisioners in a prison with no due process because we consider them enemy combatants? Do we not call for assinations of US citizens abroad because they might be linked to terrorist organizations? Wire tapping?

Notice I didn't label a specific group in the goverment being responsible for doing this, as both GOP and Dems have signed their names to the policies above.

Slippery slope. We want our country to be safe, but at what costs to our liberties?
 
All these things I think ultimately make us more unsafe in the long run. We create our own enemies by using tactics that will appear unjust and wrong to most and the folks in power give themselves more, which remains a big surprise to many it seems. It's ridiculous.
 
but most of us just ignore it or don't bother to pay attention and continue to elect those in power who keep taking away these freedoms.

All of the above is much more worriesome than guns, which is all that anyone ever seems to focus on.
 
I think it was Orwell who discussed that basically we live in an inherently anti-democratic age. The musket was a cheap and affordable weapon for the masses and the state had little superior to it. No matter what guns people have available to them or how many if the government wanted to go all tyrannical it would win...we can't afford to have our own surface to air missiles and tanks (not that we should), but I think it goes to show the imbalance of power between the ruling class (for instance the dynasty of Bush's, Kennedy's and Clinton's, in the UK Cameron and Osbourne being of the old ruling class) and those below. It does seem to be an imbalance though we are loathe to rectify or even consider an alternative to. It may be naive to think we could create a more fair and populace involved form of government and it would be much more worse to consider this is the best we can get. I am also not talking about minor tweaks, I believe a more radical rethink is required to deal with the structural inequalities in the world in regards to political and economic systems.
 
Didn't our government push through the Patriot Act? Do we not hold prisioners in a prison with no due process because we consider them enemy combatants? Do we not call for assinations of US citizens abroad because they might be linked to terrorist organizations? Wire tapping?

Notice I didn't label a specific group in the goverment being responsible for doing this, as both GOP and Dems have signed their names to the policies above.

Slippery slope. We want our country to be safe, but at what costs to our liberties?

:up: Well said and a good question.

Do you see Obamacare and the nationalization of health records as an assault on personal liberty and privacy? You should. How about a $16 trillion and growing debt, what effect will that have on the economic freedom of future generations? How do you feel about speech codes, political correctness and hate crime legislation in regards to the 1st Amendment? How about the growing Nanny state and the banning of Big Gulps, Happy Meals, certain light bulbs and toilets, etc?
 
Back
Top Bottom