Obama General Discussion II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
US military spending is something gone very wrong and/or very wild. But I don't think you ever stand even a remote chance of even having that discussion.
 
The amount of lobbying money that is circulating around government in D.C. as far as military contracts is more than enough to keep a war or two on. It's the American way.
 
Canadiens1131 said:
The amount of lobbying money that is circulating around government in D.C. as far as military contracts is more than enough to keep a war or two on. It's the American way.
Click to expand...

As long as they keep the Military Industrial Complex domestic, spend away. :up::up::up:
Apparently it's the only way Republicans want to invest in America.


China Eyes U.S. Defense Contracts - WSJ.com

EU Defense Firms Vie For U.S. Contracts - Forbes.com

Make U.S. Military Contracts Patriotic - BusinessWeek

:doh:
Never fucking mind.
 
It's what Jesus wanted, the rich to keep their money and create larger gaps!!!


On a side note it's interesting to me that the audience, not once but twice don't understand the difference between local and federal governments. I see this all too often in the Tea Party...
 
BVS said:
On a side note it's interesting to me that the audience, not once but twice don't understand the difference between local and federal governments. I see this all too often in the Tea Party...
Click to expand...
Obummer's raising our condo association fees! Damn Muslims!!!!!
 
BVS said:
It's what Jesus wanted, the rich to keep their money and create larger gaps!!!


On a side note it's interesting to me that the audience, not once but twice don't understand the difference between local and federal governments. I see this all too often in the Tea Party...
Click to expand...

It's too much to hope that they understand the difference between The Deficit and The Debt, too.

:huh:
 
Dear Mr. President,

I listened to your speech last week at Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network's 20th anniversary dinner, talking among friends and close supporters. This was an annual African American dinner, a very important one. While I know that any Democrat would have fulfilled their promise to come back if they had won the '08 election, I also know the significance, and the special burden it poses on you, as the first African American President, at the same time.

Still, I woke up the next day feeling uneasy, not because you didn't take issues of direct significance to the black community head-on -- like the fact that one in three black children go to jail once in their lifetime or that black people have an unemployment rate double the amount of white people -- but because nowhere in your deep and thoughtful remarks did you talk about the elephant in the room that affects ALL Americans, irrespective of color: the growing ranks of poor Americans, Americans struggling not just to meet their mortgage payments but to eat, sleep under a roof, educate their kids and pay their basic bills.

As a passionate advocate of yours since I joined your campaign in 2008, there is something you need to hear: in trying to soar above party politics, you risk forgetting your most important commitment to inclusion and empowerment. As you prepare for your speech to the nation tomorrow night, I write this letter to you as a friend and strong advocate.

The rich are already at the table, as are the Democrats, the Republicans, the Tea Party and the unions, the business interests and the moneyed interests. The poor can't afford for you to forget about them, and you cannot afford it either. Of all Americans, the poor are not just the real victims of this recession; they are the victims of a thirty year campaign of smear and neglect, to strengthen the rich on the backs of the rest of America in the dim and ultimately futile fantasy that the rich getting richer will somehow "trickle down."

Well, it hasn't trickled down. While middle class wages have declined in the face of unparalleled wealth and technology creation since the 1980's, the poverty rate in our country is the highest it has been in 51 years. That takes us to the early 1960's. Shame on all of us who otherwise take pride in the achievements of this rich and powerful nation.

If you don't put the poor at the heart of your policies for the next two years, with the interests aligned in favor of the rich, too many of the middle class will join them in their suffering. That is the "trickle up" of poverty that has impoverished nations with unfair concentrations of wealth at the top. That is what destroys great nations.

After the devastating financial meltdown of 2008 -- which came from the orgy of gambling by the richest among us -- and the generational recession that it wrought and now the agenda of cuts on the backs of the neediest in America, we are the precipice of losing the very fabric that makes us strong.

A few months ago, I was sitting in the church pew during the beautiful celebration of the life of one of my heroes, and one of yours, Kennedy's adviser and architect of so many policies of inclusion and empowerment, the great Sargent Shriver. It was Sargent Shriver who influenced and encouraged President Lyndon B. Johnson to declare a war on poverty in America in 1964.

The service for Mr. Shriver was deeply moving, yet there was a noticeable absence. The First Lady, President Clinton, Secretary Clinton, Oprah, Bono, Gov. Schwarzenegger and too many other celebrities, politicians and well-wishers to mention were all there, and you were around the corner at the White House. We needed you there to seize that moment to renew Mr. Shriver's dream and address our nation with a stirring speech reminding us of your campaign vows and life-long commitment to fight a war on the illness of poverty that afflicts our country, and that more and more Americans are falling into.

If we do not attack this problem with the same zeal with which we are talking about the national debt, the narrative in Washington will continue going in the direction of more misery and more poverty on the horizon, more needless suffering, young minds lost and greatness denied. Why? Because we've let the moneyed interests that gambled with the economy and came to you for bailouts paint the narrative that the poor, not they, are to blame.

By your own admission, you were too busy "getting stuff done" to paint the narrative of the transformative presidents of both parties you respect so much. Where is that narrative now? Why don't Independents and Democrats and even thoughtful Republicans buy into the amazing accomplishments of your term so far: saving the economy, managing two wars you didn't get us into, health care reform, financial reform? Because the heart of your story is missing the hard crushing reality facing everyday Americans who could not only NOT afford the $1,000 to come to the National Action Network dinner, but had to wonder about the $2.50 subway ride uptown. The heart of your story is "the other America," the one that either is or is just about to be, poor. It may not poll well today but that is only because there is more to leading than "getting stuff done." And you are the only one who can lead.

When we talk about cutting, if we don't talk about reversing the unfair Bush tax cuts on people like me who get richer, it seems, just by breathing, if YOU don't personally challenge America day in and day out for a more balanced economy between rich and poor, between fair and unfair educational outcomes, and in favor of basic services while reforming entitlements, you risk the very passion that you will need -- in your constituents and in your own deeply compassionate heart -- to win today, forget the future.

My businesses have always benefited from giving a voice to those outside the mainstream who, through their creativity could change and then transform America: rappers, comedians, poets, designers, people who need a bank account, bloggers who use this very website on which this letter is posted, GlobalGrind.com, to talk to a new America, one that is multi-racial, tech-smart, inclusive and deeply compassionate. I have benefited from never wavering from my mission of giving a voice to those communities. You can't afford not to.

We have tough times ahead. Perilous times. Treacherous times. But it has to start with the victims, the poor, paying the least and the rich, who did so incredibly well, paying the lion's share of the hard sacrifices ahead. And for that fight, I will be at your side morning, noon and night.

Your Friend,

Russell Simmons
 
What the? I really don't understand some of the decisions that he makes.


ABC News’ Jake Tapper reports:

President Obama appointed retired General Stanley McChrystal to co-chair a commission on military families this week, but according to perhaps the most prominent military family of the last decade, McChrystal is unfit for that duty.

Mary Tillman, mother of Pat Tillman, the former professional football player turned Army Ranger who was tragically killed by friendly fire 7 years ago, is angered by McChrystal’s appointment, telling ABC News that he was part of the propaganda effort pushing the false tale that Tillman had been killed by the enemy, and keeping the truth from the world -- and their family.

“I was actually pretty shocked to hear it; I don't think it’s the appropriate choice,” Tillman told ABC News. “Considering that we have plenty of evidence indicating that McChrystal was involved in the cover-up of Pat’s death...he's not the right person for that kind of a job.”

Tillman says the president's appointment of McChrystal "makes him look foolish, frankly."

She tells ABC News that "someone who has a heartfelt desire to help families would not have been involved in the cover-up of a soldier’s death, especially one that they used to promote a war.”

McChrystal -- who declined comment to ABC News -- was the commander of special operations in Afghanistan when Tillman was killed in April 2004. Soon after McChrystal wrote his commanders an urgent memo that, "It is highly possible that Corporal Tillman was killed by friendly fire.”

Having heard President George W. Bush might speak publicly about Tillman, McChrystal wrote to his higher ups to make sure they knew the truth so as to “preclude any...public embarrassment if the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public."

Tillman notes that McChrystal wrote "if this becomes public this could be an embarrasment to the administration. He didnt say 'when' this becomes public, 'when' we tell the family. So there was going to be an effort to cover this up."

At the same time McChrystal was sending that confidential memo, he was part of the propaganda effort pushing a false narrative about Tillman's death, the family charges.

He signed off on a Silver Star citation that is worded quite misleadingly, noting how “Corporal Tillman put himself in the line of devastating enemy fire” and in the next sentence referencing how Tillman, “(w)hile mortally wounded”” demonstrated “audacious leadership and courageous example under fire...”

At no point does the Silver Star citation that McChrystal signed even hint that the mortal wounds came from American guns.

“I would do this differently if I had the chance again--in retrospect they look contradictory, because we sent a silver star that was not well-written,” McChrystal testified before the Senate in 2009. “And although I went through the process, I will tell you now I didn't review the citation well enough to capture -- or I didn't catch that if you read it you could imply that it was not friendly fire.”

The Pentagon Inspector General recommended disciplinary action against McChrystal, but the army ultimately cleared him of any wrongdoing in 2007.

Mary Tillman says McChrystal let her family agonize on a national stage for years for never helping them find out the truth about their son's death.

"He deliberately helped cover up Pat's death and he has never adequately apologized to us for doing that," she says. "General McChrystal knew we were actively looking for answers. No one contacted us to try to square with us what had happened."

“I’ve come to learn through this journey that there are many other families that have been lied to by the military about their sons and daughters,'" she says, "and so we feel that what happen to Pat is pertains to other people, not just us. I think it’s a slap in the face to all soldiers to appoint this man, to be on this committee.”

Others agree with the Tillmans, including Amir Bar-Lev, the director of the critically-acclaimed documentary "The Tillman Story."

“Putting Stanley McChrystal in charge of a commission on military families is a little like putting Bernie Madoff in charge of a commission on pensions,” said Bar-Lev.

Jon Krakauer, author of "Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman," told ABC News, "I think this appointment is an outrage. McChrystal continues to dissemble about the leading role he played in the cover-up. It's shameful."

President Obama relieved McChrystal of his command last Summer after publication of a Rolling Stone story that featured McChrystal and aides trash-talking members of the administration. But the White House now argues that "the president feels strongly that General McChrystal is the right person to help lead this advisory committee on this vital issue."
 
BVS said:
It's what Jesus wanted, the rich to keep their money and create larger gaps!!!


On a side note it's interesting to me that the audience, not once but twice don't understand the difference between local and federal governments. I see this all too often in the Tea Party...
Click to expand...



What are you saying?
 
the iron horse said:
What are you saying?
Click to expand...

You know what? I'm going to answer because that's what adults do.

What I'm saying is that most of the Tea Party Conservatives are hypocrites. He's using Biblical covenant talk and equating it with not raising taxes on the rich?

I can't remember Jesus telling the rich they should keep as much of their riches as they can, do you?

Now you won't answer this, everyone in FYM knows this, but just apply some critical thinking...
 
Next weekend's edition of the New York Times Magazine has a really interesting feature story about Obama's mother in Indonesia. I don't normally care for this particular reporter, who waxes florid at regular intervals, but this is a rare closely researched look at a truly exceptional individual, with some interesting asides about her far more famous son along the way:
To describe Dunham as a white woman from Kansas turns out to be about as illuminating as describing her son as a politician who likes golf. Intentionally or not, the label obscures an extraordinary story—of a girl with a boy’s name who grew up in the years before the women’s movement, the pill and the antiwar movement; who married an African at a time when nearly two dozen states still had laws against interracial marriage; who, at 24, moved to Jakarta with her son in the waning days of an anticommunist bloodbath in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians were slaughtered; who lived more than half her adult life in a place barely known to most Americans, in the country with the largest Muslim population in the world; who spent years working in villages where a lone Western woman was a rarity; who immersed herself in the study of blacksmithing, a craft long practiced exclusively by men; who, as a working and mostly single mother, brought up two biracial children; who believed her son in particular had the potential to be great; who raised him to be, as he has put it jokingly, a combination of Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi and Harry Belafonte; and then died at 52, never knowing who or what he would become.
Click to expand...
The white woman and her half-African son made quite a pair traveling in Indonesia together. Elizabeth Bryant, an American who lived in the city of Yogyakarta at the time, remembers a lunch held at another expatriate’s house that Ann and Barry attended. Ann arrived in a long skirt made of Indonesian fabric—not, Bryant noticed, a look that other American women in Indonesia seemed to favor. Ann instructed Barry to shake hands, then to sit on the sofa and turn his attention to an English-language workbook she brought along.

...Over lunch, Barry, who was 9 at the time, sat at the dining table and listened intently but did not speak. When he asked to be excused, Ann directed him to ask the hostess for permission. Permission granted, he got down on the floor and played with Bryant’s son, who was 13 months old. After lunch, the group took a walk, with Barry running ahead. A flock of Indonesian children began lobbing rocks in his direction. They ducked behind a wall and shouted racial epithets. He seemed unfazed, dancing around as though playing dodge ball “with unseen players,” Bryant said. Ann did not react. Assuming she must not have understood the words, Bryant offered to intervene. “No, he’s OK,” Ann said. “He’s used to it.”

“We were floored that she’d bring a half-black child to Indonesia, knowing the disrespect they have for blacks,” Bryant said. At the same time, she admired Ann for teaching her boy to be fearless. A child in Indonesia needed to be raised that way—for self-preservation, Bryant decided. Ann also seemed to be teaching Barry respect. He had all the politeness that Indonesian children displayed toward their parents. He seemed to be learning Indonesian ways. “I think this is one reason he’s so halus,” Bryant said of the president, using the Indonesian adjective that means “polite, refined, or courteous,” referring to qualities some see as distinctively Javanese. “He has the manners of Asians and the ways of Americans—being halus, being patient, calm, a good listener. If you’re not a good listener in Indonesia, you’d better leave.”
Click to expand...
Indonesian schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s were inadequate; there were not enough of them, the government controlled the curriculum, teachers were poorly trained. Westerners sent their children to the Jakarta International School, but it was expensive and difficult to get into. Obama attended two Indonesian schools, one Catholic and one Muslim. The experience cannot have failed to have left a mark. The Javanese, especially the Central Javanese, place an enormous emphasis on self-control. Even to sneeze was to exhibit an untoward lack of self-control, said Michael Dove, who got to know Ann when they were both anthropologists working in Java in the 1980s. “You demonstrate an inner strength by not betraying emotion, not speaking loudly, not moving jerkily,” he said. Self-control is inculcated through a culture of teasing, Kay Ikranagara told me. Her husband, known only as Ikranagara, said, “People tease about skin color all the time.” If a child allows the teasing to bother him, he is teased more. If he ignores it, it stops. “Our ambassador said this was where Barack learned to be cool,” Kay told me. “If you get mad and react, you lose. If you learn to laugh and take it without any reaction, you win.”

With time, Ann’s thinking about Barack’s future changed. “She had always encouraged my rapid acculturation in Indonesia,” he wrote in his memoir. “It had made me relatively self-sufficient, undemanding on a tight budget, and extremely well mannered when compared with other American children. She had taught me to disdain the blend of ignorance and arrogance that too often characterized Americans abroad. But she now had learned, just as Lolo had learned, the chasm that separated the life chances of an American from those of an Indonesian. She knew which side of the divide she wanted her child to be on. I was an American, she decided, and my true life lay elsewhere.”
Click to expand...
When we spoke last July, Obama recalled those serial displacements...“She was a very strong person in her own way,” Obama said, when I asked about Ann’s limitations as a mother. “Resilient, able to bounce back from setbacks, persistent—the fact that she ended up finishing her dissertation. But despite all those strengths, she was not a well-organized person. And that disorganization, you know, spilled over. Had it not been for my grandparents, I think, providing some sort of safety net financially, being able to take me and my sister on at certain spots, I think my mother would have had to make some different decisions. And I think that sometimes she took for granted that, ‘Well, it’ll all work out, and it’ll be fine.’ But the fact is, it might not always have been fine, had it not been for my grandmother..Had she not been there to provide that floor, I think our young lives could have been much more chaotic than they were.”

But he did not, he said, hold his mother’s choices against her. Part of being an adult is seeing your parents “as people who have their own strengths, weaknesses, quirks, longings.” He did not believe, he said, that parents served their children well by being unhappy. If his mother had cramped her spirit, it would not have given him a happier childhood. As it was, she gave him the single most important gift a parent can give—“a sense of unconditional love that was big enough that, with all the surface disturbances of our lives, it sustained me, entirely.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NY Times

April 21, 2011
Nation’s Mood at Lowest Level in Two Years, Poll Shows
By JIM RUTENBERG and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN

Americans are more pessimistic about the nation’s economic outlook and overall direction than they have been at any time since President Obama’s first two months in office, when the country was still officially ensnared in the Great Recession, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Amid rising gas prices, stubborn unemployment and a cacophonous debate in Washington over the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations, the poll presents stark evidence that the slow, if unsteady, gains in public confidence earlier this year that a recovery was under way are now all but gone.

Capturing what appears to be an abrupt change in attitude, the survey shows that the number of Americans who think the economy is getting worse has jumped 13 percentage points in just one month. Though there have been encouraging signs of renewed growth since last fall, many economists are having second thoughts, warning that the pace of expansion might not be fast enough to create significant numbers of new jobs.

The dour public mood is dragging down ratings for both parties in Congress and for President Obama, the poll found.

After the first 100 days of divided government, and a new Republican leadership controlling the House of Representatives, 75 percent of respondents disapproved of the way Congress is handling its job.

Disapproval of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy has never been broader — at 57 percent of Americans — a warning sign as he begins to set his sights on re-election in 2012. And a similar percentage disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the federal budget deficit, though more disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are.

Still, for all the talk from Congressional Republicans and Mr. Obama of cutting the deficit as a way to improve the economy, only 29 percent of respondents said it would create more jobs. Twenty-seven percent said it would have no effect on the employment outlook, and 29 percent said it would cost jobs.

When it comes to cutting the deficit and the costs of the nation’s costliest entitlement programs, the poll found conflicting and sometimes contradictory views, with hints of encouragement and peril for both parties.

Mr. Obama has considerable support for his proposal to end tax cuts for those households earning $250,000 a year and more: 72 percent of respondents approved of doing so as a way to address the deficit.

And, in what he can take as a positive sign for his argument the nation has a duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens, about three-quarters of Americans polled think the federal government has a responsibility to provide health care for the elderly, and 56 percent believe it has a similar duty to the poor.

“Keep people’s taxes and give them medical benefits,” Richard Sterling, an independent voter of Naugatuck, Conn., said in a follow-up interview.

In what Republicans can take as a positive sign as they seek a more limited government, 55 percent of poll respondents said they would rather have fewer services from a smaller government than more services from a bigger one, as opposed to 33 percent who said the opposite, a continuation of a trend in Times/CBS polls.

And slightly more Americans approve than disapprove of a proposal by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin to change Medicare from a program that pays doctors and hospitals directly for treating older people to one in which the government helps such patients pay for private plans, though that support derived more from Republicans and independents. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 65 percent opposed Mr. Ryan’s plan, suggesting results can vary based on how the question is asked.

Twice as many respondents said they would prefer cuts in spending on federal programs that benefit people like them as said they would favor a rise in taxes to pay for such programs.

Yet more than 6 in 10 of those surveyed said they believed Medicare was worth the costs. And when asked specifically about Medicare, respondents said they would rather see higher taxes than see a reduction in its available medical services if they had to choose between the two.

Given the choice of cutting military, Social Security or Medicare spending as a way to reduce the overall budget, 45 percent chose military cuts, compared with those to Social Security (17 percent) or Medicare (21 percent.)

The opposition by Tea Party supporters to raising the level of debt the nation can legally carry was shared by nearly two-thirds of poll respondents, including nearly half of Democrats; administration officials say blocking the government from raising that limit could force it to default on its debt payments.

For the most part, Americans split sharply along party lines when it comes to whom they trust most on the deficit, Medicare and Social Security.

But with 70 percent of poll respondents saying that the country was heading in the wrong direction, the public was not exhibiting warm feelings toward officeholders of either party.

Most Americans think neither Mr. Obama nor the Congressional Republicans share their priorities for the country. Mr. Obama’s job approval remains below a majority, with 46 percent saying they approve of his performance in office, while 45 percent do not. And support for his handling of the military campaign in Libya has fallen since last month: 39 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove. In a CBS poll in March, 50 percent approved and 29 percent disapproved.

Republicans have their own challenges. More than half of poll respondents, 56 percent, said they did not have a favorable view of the party, as opposed to 37 percent who said they did. (The Democratic Party fared somewhat better: 49 percent did not have favorable views of it and 44 percent did.)

As the House speaker, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, becomes the face of his party in Congress, more disapprove of his job performance (41 percent) than approve of it (32 percent); 27 percent said they did not have an opinion of him.

The displeasure with officeholders of both parties is reminiscent of the mood that prevailed in November, when anti-incumbent sentiment swept Democrats out of power in the House and diminished their edge in the Senate.

Frustration with the pace of economic growth has grown since, with 28 percent of respondents in a New York Times/CBS poll in late October saying the economy was getting worse, and 39 percent saying so in the latest poll. “They’re saying it will get better, but it’s not,” Frank Tufenkdjian, a Republican of Bayville, N.Y., said in a follow-up interview. “I know so many people who are unemployed and can’t find a job.”

The nationwide telephone survey was conducted Friday through Wednesday with 1,224 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
 
Irvine511 said:
it's amazing how much gas prices affect the public mood.
Click to expand...
Human beings are creatures that function on self-interest and self-preservation, whether we acknowledge it consciously or not.

You can pull through an economic downturn with your job intact and the world's problems seem an ocean away...until you get hit in the wallet on the way to work/school/Pilates/Tea Party meeting.
 
Canadiens1131 said:
Human beings are creatures that function on self-interest and self-preservation, whether we acknowledge it consciously or not.

You can pull through an economic downturn with your job intact and the world's problems seem an ocean away...until you get hit in the wallet on the way to work/school/Pilates/Tea Party meeting.
Click to expand...



it's also a very visible loss. like when you see what you lose out of your paycheck to taxes. very, very easy to get outraged about that.
 
"But leave the Uighurs. With Kiyemba’s remedy strip the law for all, what, in year ten, shall we do with the cook, the wedding guest, the fellow traveler, the foolish youth who so many years ago wandered into a training camp, and wandered out again? Shall he terrify us forever? What shall we do with the Afghan who signed up with the wrong faction in the chaos of 2001? Shall he be our prisoner long after bin Laden’s driver is home? Until the Emperor of Terror comes aboard the Missouri, to sign the instrument of unconditional surrender in our war against a common noun?

In my city in 1942, we imprisoned Mr. Mussolini’s fierce combatants. But within two years we were inviting them to Mass in the North End, and young girls were passing notes through the fence at Carson’s Beach. We Americans held U-boat drivers in York County, Virginia, Japanese sailors in Wisconsin. As for the Nazi officers at the Hearne Camp in Texas, when they were on work release harvesting cotton, they weren’t imprisoned at all. We held the enemy on our own soil in those days. In Texas, he worked the soil. Today, our soil fears men who never were our enemies at all.

Can it really be that the frequenter-of-a-suspicious-guest-house is more fearsome than those POWs of yesterday, whom we held in camps all across America? That the Uighur is? What shall we say when the Guantanamo prisoner’s fifteenth year comes? His twenty-fifth? When a prisoner dies of old age, as Awal Gul did last February? Sooner than you think, a new MP will arrive for duty at the base, to guard a man who has been at Guantanamo since before that MP was born. (That MP is in the Boy Scouts today, but he’ll be eighteen in a few years.) What possible national interest will be served by that ironic custody?"
~Sabin Willet
 
BVS said:
You know what? I'm going to answer because that's what adults do.

What I'm saying is that most of the Tea Party Conservatives are hypocrites. He's using Biblical covenant talk and equating it with not raising taxes on the rich?

I can't remember Jesus telling the rich they should keep as much of their riches as they can, do you?

Now you won't answer this, everyone in FYM knows this, but just apply some critical thinking...
Click to expand...




Most Tea Party Conservatives are hypocrites?

Are there any liberal hypocrites?

Who is using "Biblical covenant" talk?


And just something on the side here:
Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go? ? John Stossel
 
I think it's the timing of the gas prices, and the fact that they go up every day. Just when more people were feeling comfortable spending some discretionary money on clothes or travel or entertainment, etc.-now they're hit with that and everything goes back to when they couldn't spend that money even though gas was still cheap. It's a psychological blow in addition to hitting you in the wallet.

And of course it's not just gas-it's the food price increases and everything else that's going up as a result of the gas prices. If you can't take a trip this summer or even do small things-that's a definite mood killer. What do you have to look forward to other than being more broke?
 
Yes, it's very unfortunate. I have zero respect for him :down:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House struck back at Christian evangelical leader Franklin Graham on Monday for suggesting that President Barack Obama might not have been born in the United States.

Graham, the son of evangelical leader Billy Graham -- a long-time counselor to Republican and Democratic presidents -- said on ABC television that Obama "had some issues to deal with" in proving that he was born in Hawaii -- echoing claims from the so-called "birther" movement that have been debunked.

"I was born in a hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, and I know that my records are there. You can probably even go and find out what room my mother was in when I was born. I don't know why he can't produce that," Graham said in remarks broadcast on Sunday.

He also seemed to question Obama's religious convictions.

"Now, he has told me that he is a Christian. But the debate comes, what is a Christian?" Graham said of the president.

"For him, going to church means he's a Christian. For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith and we have trusted him as our lord and savior."

The White House, which has had to deny false claims repeatedly that Obama was not born in the United States, dismissed Graham's comments.

"I think it's unfortunate that a religious leader would choose Easter Sunday to make preposterous charges," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.
 
I love how religion and this birther issue are just covering up the fact that people don't like having a fucking black person for president.

There is nothing else to it.

Yes Liberals got upset at the war mongering of Bush, and said hateful things, and even did some comparable things (using Nazi symbolism). But if we're going to compare crazy, nothing compares to what Obama has gone through.

He's had his birth questioned. His policital idealogy. His religion. Everything. No one has doubted McCain is an American Citizen.....so what's the difference? Fucking racists.

I really hope the reason for all of this commotion....is the last hurrumph of a dying breed of American racism and bigotry.
 
I consider myself a conservative, but all this ridiculousness about Obama's birth certificate makes me embarrassed to be a republican. Seriously, what are they even basing this off of?
 
Caleb8844 said:
I consider myself a conservative, but all this ridiculousness about Obama's birth certificate makes me embarrassed to be a republican. Seriously, what are they even basing this off of?
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Surely there are policy differences that the 2012 candidates could be addressing.
Does the birther push say more about the base than the candidates? Probably, yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
51 52 53
Replies
2K
Views
63K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
268
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
C
Hello Hello... Hola!
Replies
1
Views
645
prbiker15
prbiker15

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom