Go Obama!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have to be kidding. Obama made a funny harmless joke about his kids using air force one. To somehow tie it into fearmongering, 911, tragedy, deaths, etc... is absolutely ridiculous. Dont we have better political things to talk about?



no. the GOP has no ideas. they're waiting on Carrie Prejean to run for office.
 
Honest Americans and Christians prefer ketchup.

OK, you mean the American either or approach to things? Because in Germany the one doesn't exclude the other. A hamburger at McDonald's here contains mustard as well as ketchup.
 
I would love to know what the GOP stands for now. Giving tax cuts to the top 5% simply makes the rich richer and the poor poorer and creates a smaller middle class which in turn ultimately hurts the prospect of achieving the american dream. Most people are employed by small businesses, and 90% of small businesses and their owners fall into the middle class tax bracket. Giving the middle class a large tax cut will provide more jobs, and give more money to the consumers. The rich depend on the middle class to buy their products, and even if the rich are taxed more they will still make money if the middle class is doing well because more people will be able to buy products offered by many large corporations. A rising tide lifts all boats. A progressive tax code with the middle class getting a large tax cut is the best tax code. the conservative argument saying that "I made all my money, and became rich, why should I have to pay more taxes?" is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Any person who became rich got there because of the system that the US government protects, they got rich because people bought their products, and they got rich because they live in America. Therefore, they owe that to the government for allowing them to live and work in a place where they could become rich. And hopefully those taxes should be used to help everyone... including the rich. By investing more in the middle class and investing into a better education system we are allowing for a more competitive free market economy. Education usually leads to more innovation and less people on welfare (which seems to be a large GOP issue even though they dont invest much in education) The main problem is the fact that government spends on useless stuff. If government cut back on spending on useless stuff and favors for lobbyist, then perhaps we would not need to pay as much as we currently do for taxes. (I however believe that Obama's spending bill was necessary, and it invested in smart things). Just wanted to put all of this out there to get the topic on to real issues and not this stupid Wanda Sykes controversy.

....
 
Let's see if Obama is interested in fulfilling one of his campaign promises, or if he'll be as much of a disappointment as the Clinton Administration:

Gay soldier: Don’t fire me – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs

Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:

I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.

At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to “choose the harder right over the easier wrong” and to “never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.” The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.

Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.

I have personally served for a decade under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.

As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.

I am committed to applying the leadership lessons I learned at West Point. With 60 other LGBT West Point graduates, I helped form our organization, Knights Out, to fight for the repeal of this discriminatory law and educate cadets and soldiers after the repeal occurs. When I receive emails from deployed soldiers and veterans who feel isolated, alone, and even suicidal because the torment of rejection and discrimination, I remember my leadership training: soldiers cannot feel alone, especially in combat. Leaders must reach out. They can never diminish the fighting spirit of a soldier by tolerating discrimination and isolation. Leaders respect the honor of service. Respecting each soldier’s service is my personal promise.

The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.

My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.

Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.

After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.

As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.

When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.

Please do not wait to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Please do not fire me.

Very Respectfully,

Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard
 
non-existent, fabricated WMDs that were used as the very basis of an invasion that caused the death of thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

that, my friend, crosses the line.

No one fabricated Saddam's production and use of WMD while he was in power in Baghdad. Its a fact that he used WMD more times than any leader in the past half century and that he failed to comply with obligations he was forced to meet under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in relation to the dismantlement of all WMD weapons, production facilities and activities. Its a fact that after Saddam was removed, facilities related to the production of WMD were found that were in violation of the resolutions and the ceacefire agreement.

This is not something that was created or cooked up by the Bush administration as so many liberals naively believe.

"The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that THREAT, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors."

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998
 
:sigh:

weak.

in May of 2008 -- a year ago -- that website has Iraqi deaths somewhere between 83 and 90,000. and you do know, of course, that estimate is likely exceedingly low because of how violence is measured in Iraq.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A survey of a small sample of people is not an accurate way to determine who has actually been killed in a war. By the way, where is the Lancet survey or Opinion Research Business Survey for the war in Afghanistan?

What would be the cost to the Iraqi people, as well as the region, of leaving Saddam in power in 2003 as so many liberals wanted to do?
 
No one fabricated Saddam's production and use of WMD while he was in power in Baghdad. Its a fact that he used WMD more times than any leader in the past half century and that he failed to comply with obligations he was forced to meet under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in relation to the dismantlement of all WMD weapons, production facilities and activities. Its a fact that after Saddam was removed, facilities related to the production of WMD were found that were in violation of the resolutions and the ceacefire agreement.

This is not something that was created or cooked up by the Bush administration as so many liberals naively believe.

"The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that THREAT, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors."

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998






clearly, this was such a compelling justification for war, and so convincing, and so accurate, that the administration felt as if needed no other justification for the invasion and did not feel as if it needed to torture detainees so they would spit out "information" about the non-existent relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

because that's what they did. let's not fool ourselves. torture became a policy in order for Cheney to dig up more "information" so he could justify to the American public the invasion of Iraq.
 
i agree.

so far, Obama has been disappointing on BGLT issues.

political considerations are pathetic, but necessary.


I do expect him to correct this before he leaves office, perhaps after the Nov 2010 elections


my reasoning may not be good, his mandate may be at its largest now, 2010 could leave him weaker going into 2012

I just believe human rights are mostly going the right direction, and less political capital will be required as time goes on.

I know this sounds like I am saying who cares if you have to stand or sit at the back of the bus,
soon enough all seats will be open to you.
 
The Iraq thing is something that Clinton wouldn't have minded having justification for, 9/11 was plenty, we were going back in one way or another. Torture has nothing to do with how we got to Iraq.
 
The Iraq thing that Clinton wouldn't have minded having justification for. 9/11 was plenty, we were going back in one way or another. Torture has nothing to do with how we got to Iraq.




what did Iraq have to do with 9-11?

torture has everything to do with the "intelligence" that "justified" the war in the minds of the Bush administration.

"how we got into Iraq"? you make it sound like we were tricked or something.
 
The groundwork for going back into Iraq was around before Bush, 9/11, and torture. Iraq had nothing to do with that particular day, I just mean it's easy to see it as a catalyst when we declared we would go after terror anywhere. Saddam was no angel, 9/11 or not.
 
The groundwork for going back into Iraq was around before Bush, 9/11, and torture. Iraq had nothing to do with that particular day, I just mean it's easy to see it as a catalyst when we declared we would go after terror anywhere. Saddam was no angel, 9/11 or not.



and everyone thought that invading Iraq would be a massive mistake -- the whole "Pottery Barn Rule" brought up by Powell -- until Bush came along and fabricated a sense of crisis and urgency around Saddam Hussein.

he was as much of an angel in 2002 as he was in 1998 or in 1995. all that changed was a massive tragedy in New York that was exploited by the Bush administration who also sought to fabricate intelligence -- through WMDs or the torture of detainees to admit to the non-existent link between Saddam and Al Qaeda -- that would justify the invasion to the American public and to world opinion.

it's quite clear by the administration's actions that they were enormously insecure about their rationale for invasion. after all, if they were so secure, why the massive intelligence failure? why the torture? why the need to make Saddam and his weapons out to be a threat to people living in the US?

it's because no one ever wanted to invade to begin with. because it was a bad idea. and it was a bad idea because of what we've seen unfold since 2003.

now, some will say that either you invade, or you let Saddam ride a tank into Jerusalem and capture the Saudi oil fields. but that's a false choice. that's bad thinking.
 
He harbored a terrorist from the first WTC bombing, we were only 8 minutes away from going back into Iraq in 1998. Anyone brought to Gitmo from Afghanistan being tortured would hardly have bearing on the Invasion of Iraq.
 
Anyone brought to Gitmo from Afghanistan being tortured would hardly have bearing on the Invasion of Iraq.



then why was Zubaydah waterboarded 83 times?

waterboarding was approved in 2002 specifically to force confessions of links between AQ and Saddam Hussein.

remember the whole "yellow cake" issue? the British dossier?

they were desperate to magnify the threat from Saddam.
 
I know we brought a ton of yellowcake out of Iraq. That? We didn't need to vilify Saddam anymore than he already had been. He was the poster child for evil during all of the 90's. Didn't you see the South Park movie? ;)
 
According to Roger Simon over at Politico:
A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”
 
^ oh, go for it GOP.

it's amazing how they don't realize that Obama has helped them hang themselves by turning them into the party of Cheney and Rush.
 
It must be seriously embarrassing to be a Republican these days.
 
Obama - good for Pro-Life ?


qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg.gif


Gallup Poll: Obama Collides with Public Opinion on Abortion -- Politics Daily
 
I think it's too early to conclude what, if anything, that poll decisively points to.

A CNN poll in April (just under twice the Gallup poll's sample size) asking the same question found the results 49% pro-choice, 45% pro-life, 3% 'both/mixed/neither,' and 2% 'unsure/unsure about terms.' A Quinnipiac poll also from April (more than twice the Gallup poll's sample size) asking the rather more useful question "Should abortion be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?" yielded the results 15% always legal, 37% mostly legal, 27% mostly illegal, 14% always illegal, and 7% unsure. The Gallup poll you (deep) just cited also asked the question, "Should abortions be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" and for that question, the results were 22% legal under any circumstances, 53% legal in certain circumstances, 23% illegal in all circumstances, and 2% unsure. As Gallup noted in their press release, "the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975." So it may be that the most noteworthy shift here (assuming there is one, i.e. that the Gallup poll isn't an outlier) pertains to self-labeling preferences rather than policy preferences, in something like the way the term "liberal" has become increasingly stigmatized over the last several years despite what election results would seem to suggest. Further polling should clarify.
 
clearly, this was such a compelling justification for war, and so convincing, and so accurate, that the administration felt as if needed no other justification for the invasion and did not feel as if it needed to torture detainees so they would spit out "information" about the non-existent relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

because that's what they did. let's not fool ourselves. torture became a policy in order for Cheney to dig up more "information" so he could justify to the American public the invasion of Iraq.




Which line of the congressional resolution on Iraq passed on October 13, 2002, talks of a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda obtained from controversial interigations methods?

After October 13, 2002, the Bush administration had all the approval it needed from the country to go to war. Another vote of any kind was not needed. By the way, nearly every Republican Senator and the majority of Democratic Senator's voted for the resolution. A huge contrast from the 1991 Gulf War congressional resolution when the vast majority of Democrats opposed the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait.
 
torture has everything to do with the "intelligence" that "justified" the war in the minds of the Bush administration.

"how we got into Iraq"? you make it sound like we were tricked or something.


How about what the Clinton administration said about Iraq:


"The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that THREAT, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors."

President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998

Removing Saddam from power as a way to deal with the serious security chalenges in the region was not something invented by the Bush administration!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom