Go Obama! - Page 23 - 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 05-17-2009, 04:03 PM   #441
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
hey

a 'flip - flop' is a 'flip-flop'.


Obama flip-flopped.

Feel free to go into a rage.
A flip-flop is a sandal. Or a stupid talking point made up by Rove and Co. to make a political opponent seem weak. Which, in retrospect, may have been true, since the political opponent neglected to mention the obvious, that in many cases, it's actually a strength. Bah.
__________________

VintagePunk is offline  
Old 05-17-2009, 04:06 PM   #442
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:37 PM
"There's nothing either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."

Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
A flip-flop is a sandal. Or a stupid talking point made up by Rove and Co. to make a political opponent seem weak.
a scandal?

you might say "no"

then 3 beers later 'flip-flop', and say "yes".

A scandal? no. Scandalous, maybe.
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 05-17-2009, 06:23 PM   #443
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Exactly...

This just speaks volumes to the concerns, intellect, and how uninformed the Rush audience right is...
BVS, come on. Simply because you disagree with someone does not give you free reign to directly insult them. You seriously need to stop connecting every difference of opinion to a personal fault in the other person.

Stick to their argument, not their character, please.
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-17-2009, 06:58 PM   #444
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Everyone? Watch what these Democrats have to say on the issue below:






Colin Powell supported the use of military force to remove Saddam from power in 2002, and has continued to support removing Saddam from power to this day. In an interview with Barbara Walters in 1995, Colin Powel said the following about using military force to remove Saddam from power:

"when the President says it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in defiance of UN Security Council Resolutions, I am right there with him on the use of military force"




Why do you think the Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998? Why do you think Bill Clinton said the following on December 16, 1998?

"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


A lot more had changed between 1995 and 2002. The sanctions and weapons embargo had completely fallen apart by 2002. There was literally no monitering or inspections at all along the entire Syrian/Iraqi border by the summer of 2002. UN inspectors were kicked out of the country in 1998 after having been harrassed and prevented from doing much of anything in the 18 months prior to that point. Plenty of changes that impact the security situation, the question is are some people willing to read, understand, and acknowledge these basic facts.




Polls done of the American people on the question of removing Saddam from power from 1991 to 2001 as well as from 2001 to 2003 shows that the majority of Americans supported using military force to remove Saddam from power.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/26/rel7c.pdf page 5




Intelligence "failures" are very common. Just take a look at the intelligence about Iraq's WMD's prior to the 1991 Gulf War and what was found out after the 1991 war.

The issue is not actually the intelligence, but the Saddam regime's compliance. Intelligence because of its nature can always be debated, what was not debatable was Saddam's failure to comply with the resolutions and the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement he signed.

While certain WMD's of Saddam's were not found, there was no firm evidence that such WMD had been dismantled or completely disposed of by Saddam, only theory's as to what might of happened. In addition, WMD related programs that were in violation of the resolutions were found after the war.



It was already widely acknowledged by the security community long before Bush ever became President that Sarin Gas and Anthrax could be smuggled into the country and used against the civilian population and cause enormous loss of life. To downplay or completely ignore such threats, especially in the wake of 9/11 would have been irresponsible.





Actually, the Clinton Administration and Bush Administration disagree with you on that point. It was the Clinton administration that made regime change in Iraq US policy. It was the Bush administration that successfuly changed the regime in Iraq. Clinton's statement on December 16, 1998 was correct.



The wrong policy would have been if the United States did not respond with force until Saddam was actually doing what he did in 1991, moving his military into neighboring countries, etc. The Policy of the United States and the world community since 1991 has been to have a policy in place to PREVENT those events from ever happening again, meaning the line in the sand is no longer the border of another country, but Saddam's compliance with disarmament and other issues related to the security of the region. Military action was used by both the Clinton and Bush administrations with this in mind. Both administrations came to the conclusion that the only way to achieve US security objectives in the region was by removing Saddam from power.





The number of people that think it would have been a better idea to let Saddam stay in power gets smaller every day.






wow. what compelling "evidence" that's actually related to the issue at hand and doesn't conflate "regime change" with "full-scale invasion and overthrow by the US military."

it's such an impressive thing you've done here, STING, that you should have let the Bush administration know that this was all they needed to do in order to completely justify the cost of an invasion to the American people.

sadly, they weren't as informed as you. they felt that they needed to torture detainees in order to fabricate the nonexistent links between Saddam and AQ in order to further justify their policy. i know you think they didn't need to do that -- but the fact is, they thought they needed to do that! weird!

i wish you had told them back in 2001/2, and especially as the torture was ramped up -- 183 times in March of 2003 alone! the month of the invasion! just a coincidence! -- so that they would have known that their case for invading Iraq was so rock solid, so coherent, so cohesive, that there was no need to torture.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-17-2009, 08:22 PM   #445
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Stick to their argument, not their character, please.
Well there wasn't much of an "argument" there, it was just tabloid fodder, and my comment was more about how Rush spent 30 minutes on this piece of "news" on Friday. But I will tone it down...
BVS is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 08:52 AM   #446
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Any comments on his Notre Dame speech?
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 11:47 AM   #447
Refugee
 
zooropop40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Interference is called Interference because it interferes on my ability to live a normal life...
Posts: 1,583
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Any comments on his Notre Dame speech?
I thought the protest was ridiculous.

i mean, if a student, perhaps a validictorian, who happened to be Pro-choice gave a speech at graduation, would people protest? Are people who think differently from them not allowed on campus as students, speakers, or teachers?

I know that there are pro-choice people at notre dame, but I dont think their views are treated with respect from what I saw in the past few days. and for god sakes...its the president! At least appreciate that he is coming to speak at your school. As much as you disagree with him on a single issue, at least let him congratulate you on graduating!?!
zooropop40 is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 12:58 PM   #448
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:37 AM
^ On the contrary, it was Notre Dame who invited him, and the Notre Dame administration which stuck to its guns about having him speak there. Most of those protestors bused or drove in from elsewhere--Randall Terry, Alan Keyes, Norma McCorvey etc.; these people have nothing to do with Notre Dame. According to the local paper, there were only 26 actual students (out of more than 2600) boycotting the ceremony. Now if actual students and faculty who objected to Obama speaking there and/or receiving an honorary degree wished to protest, great, go for it, but this should never have become a free-for-all with random pro-life activists busing in from all over the Midwest to wave signs, push around bloody dolls in baby strollers, hire planes with pro-life banners to fly around overhead for weeks, etc. A commencement speech is NOT a political event, it is for the students. And no, Obama was not their first pro-choice commencement speaker, nor even the first pro-choice sitting President to deliver a commencement address there...let alone all the other Catholic teachings Presidents who've spoken there haven't supported: on capital punishment, Iraq War, Latin America policies, etc.

A friend of mine who's taught there for many years (and was at the ceremony yesterday) emailed me a link to the speech, which I watched most of. It seemed like a very fine speech.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 12:59 PM   #449
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 12:37 AM
here's a reasonable anti-abortion, Catholic response:

Quote:
Obama Courageously Misses the Point

What did you think of President Obama's commencement speech Sunday at Notre Dame? How will the Notre Dame controversy change the abortion debate in America?

When a few protesters interrupted President Obama's speech at the Notre Dame graduation by shouting, "Stop killing our children!" the student body replied by chanting, "Yes, we can."

This inadvertent juxtaposition of messages was, perhaps, not the best way to placate traditional Catholics.

President Obama gave a good speech at the University of Notre Dame graduation if rhetorical skill is the measure of speaking excellence. Graduation speeches are notoriously tricky: most people little remember anything said in them, but only resent their length. Obama navigated those waters, but he did so by missing the point of the entire controversy surrounding the visit.

Notre Dame aided that misunderstanding, but watching the ceremony made it obvious why their better judgment was clouded. It was moving to see civil rights leaders in Notre Dame's history honored and live to applaud the nation's first African-American president. Given University leadership in the cause of civil rights, it is understandable that Notre Dame would wish to honor this President.

Though it was a mistake to give him a high honor, it was not a mistake to let him speak. Anybody thinking there would be widespread disruption at the ceremony or a lack of courtesy knows nothing about Christian higher education. If he had to come and be given an award, Notre Dame students were right to give honor to the office of President by politely hearing him out even if they do not respect the abortion views of the man.

Besides, anyone who thinks traditional Catholic views represent some vast majority of the Notre Dame student body also does not understand the state of Catholic higher education!

President Obama's speech was a very bad speech in that it pretended to be one thing when it was something else. I predict it will be hailed for boldly confronting the "controversy surrounding his appearance," but he was not bold and he did not confront the controversy.

The President spoke as if the controversy centered on his appearance at Notre Dame and speech when in reality it centered on his being honored despite his views.

Traditional Christians in the academy were not concerned that the President was invited to speak at a Christian university. Who wouldn't welcome the chance to hear the perspectives of the single most powerful political figure in the world? President Obama's views on abortion are wrong, and morally wicked, but listening to an argument on them is not.

President Obama "bravely" defended civil dialogue in his speech when civil dialogue was not the question. No reasonable academic, and no patriotic American, questions the right of our President to speak his mind. All of us are in favor of civil discourse and few see any reason to question the motives of our opponents.

Those who do not want to listen to their opponents are wrong. We should all charitably read opposing views on the great issues of the age and treat our opponents with tough-minded respect. If we still disagree, we should charitably believe for as long as we can that they are misled and not wicked.

The sad truth, as our own lives demonstrate to us, is that we often have noble motives for wicked acts. We did not mean to hurt anybody, but we do. Our positions are not sanctified by our sincerity. This is as true of the proponents of segregation, well-intentioned though they are, as it is of advocates of abortion.

Notre Dame did not just listen to the most powerful abortion advocate in the world, but loudly and publicly honored him. He is a man, perhaps with noble motives, who is sending their tax money to pay for abortion. If the University attacks those who opposed this honoring of an abortion advocate as if they were opposed to free speech or hearing other points of view, then the University will be guilty of grossly distorting the basis for opposition.

Perhaps, the President's speech will persuade Notre Dame to avoid this tactic. As a warning to college administrators not to slander their critics, the President's speech may have some good effect.

What of abortion?

About abortion, the President "bravely" said nothing at all to defend his view that it should be legal to take the life of a child in the third trimester or that experimentation on humans (or potential humans) is licit. He said nothing at all to show why the Catholic papacy and bishops are wrong to say that support for abortion is a sin so grave that it overshadows other good deeds in politics.

In short, Notre Dame and the President talked about what they agreed on and ignored their differences. Any pretense that the President was brought to the campus to give all points of view is laughable. President Obama did not give his point of view, but was cheered for "bravely" having it by a school dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Perhaps well-intentioned academics are so skilled at dialogue that they are apt to ignore actions. While President Obama invites Notre Dame to talk, he governs outside of the culture of life.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 01:19 PM   #450
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
About abortion, the President "bravely" said nothing at all to defend his view that it should be legal to take the life of a child in the third trimester or that experimentation on humans (or potential humans) is licit. He said nothing at all to show why the Catholic papacy and bishops are wrong to say that support for abortion is a sin so grave that it overshadows other good deeds in politics.
This has nothing to do with a convocation speech - why the hell would he talk about it?

The whole protest sounds incredibly silly. And I agree with yolland, it was really not as much a reflection on the school but outside groups who saw a chance and an opening for public spectacle.
anitram is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 04:42 PM   #451
Refugee
 
zooropop40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Interference is called Interference because it interferes on my ability to live a normal life...
Posts: 1,583
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
^ On the contrary, it was Notre Dame who invited him, and the Notre Dame administration which stuck to its guns about having him speak there. Most of those protestors bused or drove in from elsewhere--Randall Terry, Alan Keyes, Norma McCorvey etc.; these people have nothing to do with Notre Dame. According to the local paper, there were only 26 actual students (out of more than 2600) boycotting the ceremony. Now if actual students and faculty who objected to Obama speaking there and/or receiving an honorary degree wished to protest, great, go for it, but this should never have become a free-for-all with random pro-life activists busing in from all over the Midwest to wave signs, push around bloody dolls in baby strollers, hire planes with pro-life banners to fly around overhead for weeks, etc. A commencement speech is NOT a political event, it is for the students. And no, Obama was not their first pro-choice commencement speaker, nor even the first pro-choice sitting President to deliver a commencement address there...let alone all the other Catholic teachings Presidents who've spoken there haven't supported: on capital punishment, Iraq War, Latin America policies, etc.

A friend of mine who's taught there for many years (and was at the ceremony yesterday) emailed me a link to the speech, which I watched most of. It seemed like a very fine speech.
hmm, well if this is true (and I hope it is) then the media sure made it out to be like the campus was divided and the students protesting was more than 26. I guess the controversy overshadowed the fact that maybe it wasnt notre dame students as much as radical right wing people.
zooropop40 is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 06:18 PM   #452
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 05:37 AM
I like that they put the heckling - not just (inaudible heckling) or (interrupted by audience member), but what he actually said - into the official transcript.
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 05-20-2009, 01:11 AM   #453
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Obama sets strict limits on car exhaust emissions

Policy requires US automakers to produce cars and trucks that get an average 35.5mpg by 2016

America's gas-guzzling automobiles were heading towards extinction yesterday as Barack Obama set strict limits on car exhaust emissions and directed producers to make a more fuel-efficient vehicle fleet. The policy requires US auto makers to produce cars and trucks that achieve an average 35.5mpg by 2016, and will reduce America's carbon dioxide emissions by 30%.

"For the first time in history we have set in motion a national policy aimed at increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars sold in the United States," Obama told state governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, car industry executives and environmentalists in the White House rose garden.

Obama said America had paid a high price for its dependence on imported oil, and the change was long overdue. "What is all the more tragic is that we've known about these costs in one way or another since the gas shortages of the 1970s. And yet all too little has been done. Calls for action rise and fall with the price of a barrel of oil," he said.

Environmentalists said the policy, which will be put in force by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transport, would do more to reduce global warming pollution than any of the other measures taken by Obama so far. It would also lead to the overhaul of the US car industry. Cars and trucks are responsible for about a quarter of America's greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama said the change, which will improve today's average 25mpg performance, was the equivalent of shutting down 194 coal plants or taking 58m cars off the roads for a year. It will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 900m metric tonnes, and save the equivalent of last year's imports of oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria combined.

This is huge.

Obama will get great credit in history for this.

This will be a big part of his legacy.

If Bush had the fortitude to do something like this,
his standing both nationally and internationally would be 10-15 points higher.
deep is offline  
Old 05-23-2009, 01:07 PM   #454
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,047
Local Time: 06:37 AM
great timing
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 02:55 PM   #455
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Well done.

Obama observes Memorial Day at Arlington cemetery - Yahoo! News
HyperU2 is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 03:14 PM   #456
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 12:37 AM
hopefully these new regulations on automobiles won't cause rises in their prices. i imagine these car companies will have to spend a decent sum of money to ensure their automobiles are compliant, and therefore rising prices. in this economic crisis i dont think we need cars to cost more. it may save me gas in the long run, but i need the extra $1000 or so the car costs now.
bigjohn2441 is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 03:17 PM   #457
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Last week, a group of about 60 professors petitioned the White House, asking the first black U.S. president to break tradition and not memorialize military members from the Confederacy, the group of Southern states that supported slavery.

"The Arlington Confederate Monument is a denial of the wrong committed against African-Americans by slave owners, Confederates and neo-Confederates, through the monument's denial of slavery as the cause of secession and its holding up of Confederates as heroes," the petitioners said. "This implies that the humanity of Africans and African-Americans is of no significance."

The White House ignored the request.

Obama laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, a customary presidential undertaking on Memorial Day. He also had one sent to the Confederate Memorial there, a traditional practice but not well publicized. Obama also took the unprecedented step of sending a wreath to the African American Civil War Memorial in Washington's historically black U Street neighborhood.

That memorial — to the 200,000 blacks who fought for the North during the Civil War — had been mentioned as a compromise in recent days.

Presidents traditionally visit Arlington National Cemetery to personally leave a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns, a marble structure holding the remains of unidentified U.S. service members who died during war. Presidents then have aides deliver wreaths to other memorials or monuments, generally including the Confederate Memorial.


Hopefully, some day the U S Government will stop honoring the Confederacy.


Obama is not the right President to stop.
deep is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 03:44 PM   #458
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
hopefully these new regulations on automobiles won't cause rises in their prices. i imagine these car companies will have to spend a decent sum of money to ensure their automobiles are compliant, and therefore rising prices. in this economic crisis i dont think we need cars to cost more. it may save me gas in the long run, but i need the extra $1000 or so the car costs now.

The car industry as a whole, especially American car companies are going to have to rethink everything, they've been on auto-pilot for years and real innovation has gone out the window. Cost will have to be part of this rethinking.
BVS is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 04:09 PM   #459
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
but i need the extra $1000 or so the car costs now.


you can easily save $85 a month in gasoline costs.

How much is that in one year?

or the 4 year life of your car?

If a car cost $15,000 or $14,000

what is the differece in you monthly payment?


What is the differece in the resale of a 4 year old car that gets 20 miles per gallon vs one that gets 35 mpg?
deep is offline  
Old 05-25-2009, 04:38 PM   #460
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 11:37 PM
I want to be able to drive whatever I want to drive. I love my gas guzzler, it pisses off hippies.
__________________

HyperU2 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 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×