Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 64 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2012, 06:52 PM   #946
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Did no one notice my post about how Mitt Romney wants to raise the poor's taxes and cut the rich's taxes while adding hundreds of billions to the deficit?
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-06-2012, 08:07 PM   #947
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,718
Local Time: 01:55 AM
On second eighteenth thought ....

Excuse me, Newt, but reproductive health is an important issue to me and to many others, as is a public figure (even one so blatantly trolling) calling a woman a slut and a prostitute.

But I guess no, I'm supposed to be raging against Obama for whatever he has done or hasn't done. Because the gas prices have (surprise!) gone way up (again!). Because that's never happened under any other president or anything.

Me and my babymaking parts will just be over here, concerning myself about stuff that is important to me. You carry on with your Newtness. Knock yourself out.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 03-07-2012, 09:14 AM   #948
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 04:55 AM
It's not just about Rush Limbaugh, it's also about the fact that the strongest GOP statement about what he said came from John McCain. Checking...not a candidate this year.

If birth control and babymaking parts are not important issues, why has Santorum been talking about that so much?

Women remember in November-that's all that's really left to say
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-07-2012, 01:04 PM   #949
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 04:55 AM
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/p...ebruary_12.pdf

This is good for the economy, is it not?
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-07-2012, 01:25 PM   #950
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,568
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Only when a Republican is in charge. The ecomony is growing despite Obama. Probably surging because of such strong leadership in the GOP
__________________
BEAL is offline  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:26 PM   #951
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I feel Newt's pain, everyone here would rather talk about Rush too.
Newt Gingrich needs to shut up. So does Rush Limbaugh. They're both assholes and I'm tired of their crap.

I would respond to your response to me but I think others here have handled this properly enough. Bottom line, pregnancy and matters related to it are health issues. And if an employer is willing to cover other various health-related stuff for their employees, there is no logical reason why birth control can't be among the things covered. None. The "moral reasons" argument is BS and nothing more than a lame excuse.

Also, don't really appreciate the side remark at MrsSpringsteen. She just posts the articles and makes her comment on them occasionally. I trust her source-gathering abilities.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-07-2012, 10:39 PM   #952
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Slate, March 6
Quote:
In his speech Monday explaining when he thinks the U.S. government can kill American citizens, Attorney General Eric Holder offered bare bones without much meat. We know now that the Obama administration thinks its lawyers don’t have to get a judge’s approval before a top government official makes the call to assassinate someone. As Holder put it, " 'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." We know that the internal review process includes some limits. As Adam Serwer explains, “The target has to pose an ‘imminent threat of violent attack’ to the United States and be beyond the ability of American authorities to capture, and the strike can't violate international standards governing the use of force by killing too many civilians or noncombatants.”

But that’s about it. Holder didn’t explain how the administration arrived at the conclusion that due process within the executive branch is enough. He has refused to release the legal memo from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice that must lay out how the administration got to here from there—the meat that was missing from his speech. And he didn’t say how the government arrived at the conclusion in September that it was OK to kill not just Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American cleric in Yemen whom the government says is linked to underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, but also Awlaki's son, Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, who was also an American citizen.

If you want to believe that the government does its grim best to fight terrorists, and you’re inclined to think that their dirty tactics justify some ruthlessness on our part, then maybe a few killings of bad guys in faraway lands doesn’t bother you much. But there are a couple of unsettling implications here that are so obvious that it’s amazing Holder thinks he need not address them. The first is that if the Obama administration claims this kind of extra-judicial power for a few cases, what’s to stop the next president from expanding upon it—and citing this step as precedent for taking others that Obama wouldn’t countenance? And the second is that when the executive branch won’t release the legal memos that underlie its decision-making, we’re blocked from evaluating how strong or weak the arguments are. When the federal government takes a bold and new step like this, testing the boundaries of the Constitution, it’s crucial for Holder and his lawyers to explain how and why. Instead, we’re being asked to take the wisdom of the president and his national security apparatus for granted. That’s a precedent that the Bush administration set in the bad old days of Attorney General John Ashcroft. It was this Department of Justice that produced John Yoo’s legal memos approving waterboarding and other interrogation techniques that amount to torture, the finding that the Guantanamo detainees weren’t prisoners of war protected by the Geneva conventions, and approved of warrantless wiretapping. Yoo’s legal innovations were dizzying—to put it kindly—and the leaking of his memos in 2004 was the first step toward official Department of Justice repudiation of them.

Maybe the Obama administration is standing on more solid legal ground with its targeted assassinations, and maybe not. The point is that this is the fully informed conversation worth having, not the skeleton version Holder is now offering. The New York Times and the ACLU have each gone to court arguing that the memos should be made public. Holder, of course, doesn’t need a court order—he could disclose his department’s legal reasoning himself. Until he does, it’s hard to see what more speeches will accomplish. If you were a critic before, you remain one now. Maybe even more so.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-07-2012, 11:21 PM   #953
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Excellent questions/concerns raised there. These are the sorts of things that would be worthy of a reasonable debate between the Obama administration and the Republican candidates (and for Obama supporters and other Democrats to confront the administration on, 'cause this is kind of a disturbing thing to be tied to).

But, of course, as noted, given that the Republicans are guilty of approving this sort of thing under Bush, it would make them look just a tad hypocritical.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-09-2012, 05:05 PM   #954
War Child
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 705
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Apparently, membership to anti-government militia has increased during Obama's first term.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Quote:
The radical right grew explosively in 2011, the third such dramatic expansion in as many years. The growth was fueled by superheated fears generated by economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories, the changing racial makeup of America, and the prospect of four more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.

The number of hate groups counted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) last year reached a total of 1,018, up slightly from the year before but continuing a trend of significant growth that is now more than a decade old. The truly stunning growth came in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement — conspiracy-minded groups that see the federal government as their primary enemy.

The Patriot movement first emerged in 1994, a response to what was seen as violent government repression of dissident groups at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and near Waco, Texas, in 1993, along with anger at gun control and the Democratic Clinton Administration in general. It peaked in 1996, a year after the Oklahoma City bombing, with 858 groups, then began to fade. By the turn of the millennium, the Patriot movement was reduced to fewer than 150 relatively inactive groups.

But the movement came roaring back beginning in late 2008, just as the economy went south with the subprime collapse and, more importantly, as Barack Obama appeared on the political scene as the Democratic nominee and, ultimately, the president-elect. Even as most of the nation cheered the election of the first black president that November, an angry backlash developed that included several plots to murder Obama. Many Americans, infused with populist fury over bank and auto bailouts and a feeling that they had lost their country, joined Patriot groups.

The swelling of the Patriot movement since that time has been astounding. From 149 groups in 2008, the number of Patriot organizations skyrocketed to 512 in 2009, shot up again in 2010 to 824, and then, last year, jumped to 1,274. That works out to a staggering 755% growth in the three years ending last Dec. 31. Last year’s total was more than 400 groups higher than the prior all-time high, in 1996.

Meanwhile, the SPLC counted 1,018 hate groups operating in the United States last year, up from 1,002 in 2010. That was the latest in a string of annual increases going all the way back to 2000, when there were 602 hate groups. The long-running rise seemed for most of that time to be a product of hate groups’ very successful exploitation of the issue of non-white immigration. Obama’s election and the crashing economy have played a key role in the last three years.
The 'Patriot' Movement Explodes | Southern Poverty Law Center

Interestingly, author John Avlon, a self-described political centrist, has coined the term "Hatriot", since he doesn't believe the "Patriot" movement is truly patriotic, but is instead rooted in hate and extremism.
__________________
HBK-79 is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 06:52 PM   #955
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:55 AM
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
-- Hillary Clinton 2003

Now what's changed since 2003?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 07:04 PM   #956
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Has someone called you unpatriotic INDY?

Surely you understand the difference between DEBATE and an ARMED MILITIA?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 07:05 PM   #957
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 03:55 AM
You're absolutely right. I'm sure all these people just have reasonable, rational disagreements that would lead them to arm themselves and form militias.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 07:32 PM   #958
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
-- Hillary Clinton 2003

Now what's changed since 2003?
We're in a better place and the opposition has gotten together with a shitload of guns?
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 09:14 PM   #959
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
-- Hillary Clinton 2003

Now what's changed since 2003?
And the very same people attacking Obama now were the ones who back in 2003 were all "Support the president/country! Love it or leave it!" . Your point?

You can disagree with Obama all you wish and say so. I voted for the guy and I don't agree with everything he's done. I wholeheartedly agree that the idea that if you don't support the president you're not patriotic is ludicrous.

But I've also never felt the need to stock up on guns to "protect myself" from whatever psychotic fear I have of my president "taking away my rights" or whatever and/or make threats against the president's life or any other government official's. There's kind of a massive difference between that and simply disagreeing with a president's position on something.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-10-2012, 01:53 PM   #960
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 04:55 AM
(AP)WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama is hitting back at Republican criticism of his energy policies and his role in controlling gasoline prices.

Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to underscore his administration's work to develop alternative energy sources and increase fuel efficiency.

"I'm going to keep doing everything I can to help you save money on gas, both right now and in the future," Obama said. "I hope politicians from both sides of the aisle join me."

He accused Republicans of a "bumper sticker" approach to solving the nation's energy problems.

It's a familiar theme --Obama stuck many of the same chords during two out-of-town trips this week and during a White House news conference on Wednesday.

"We can't just drill our way to lower gas prices -- not when we consume 20 percent of the world's oil," Obama said in the address, recorded during a visit Friday to a Virginia jet engine component plant.

In the Republican weekly address, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple accused the Obama administration of blocking projects and technology that would allow greater energy production. He singled out the Keystone XL pipeline project, which Obama deferred.

"We cannot effectively market our crude oil domestically without a large north-south pipeline," Dalrymple said. "North Dakota oil producers were scheduled to feed the Keystone pipeline with 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day."

Obama said there wasn't enough time to properly study the project ahead of the deadline forced upon him by Republican congressional lawmakers. On Thursday, the Democratic-controlled Senate blocked another Republican bid to speed approval of the pipeline, which would stretch from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Also Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Obama is partly to blame for higher prices at the pump.

Gasoline prices paused this week in their march toward $4 per gallon.

After 39 straight days of increases, prices fell nearly a penny from Tuesday to Thursday and held steady on Friday at $3.758 per gallon for the national average. The lull won't last long, and gas is still nearly 50 cents higher than it was at the beginning of the year.

Despite Romney's assertions, economists say there's not much a president of either party could do about gasoline prices. The current increases at the pump have been driven by fears of a war with oil-rich Iran and by higher demand in the U.S. as well as in China, India and other growing nations.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com