• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 461 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
rhubroma said:
As I thought...other than sad given the circumstances.
....gee seems like SoCal's tribe's echo chamber has no answers and now he is hammering the messenger....

...bereft of ideas I say, and as Chewie pointed out, reduced to playing cheap political games... sad indeed...

Cheers
 
VeloCity said:
If it's a train wreck, why then would you feel the need to sabotage it?

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/aug/29/ga-insurance-chief-brags-about-sabotage-obamacare/

Maybe he should be focusing on making it work instead? But this goes right back to what the Republican Party has become:

Doing a fine job of it, too.
It boils down to why is the most affluent society on earth able to contemplate a war with Syria, but not social healthcare? Ah the necessity of ideology, I can find no other. Other than prejudices, as someone once told.

At least that much is clear.

Though, one asks, was healthcare an option in the universal quest for power?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....a pertinent comment on one the key side's position in this sorry mess...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUST SHUT UP
By Charles P. Pierce


Read more: Joe Lieberman Syria - Just Shut Up - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com

Let me be more precise. Just shut your fking piehole. Forever. You useless walking, bloodstained pile of casual death.

Lieberman said that he would urge lawmakers -- including his "amigos," Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- to approve an action in Syria. "I'm sure that our enemies are cheering now as a result of this decision because they realize it's not clear the president will get authority, and our allies are worried," he concluded. "That's why, again, this resolution or something like it has to pass Congress."
Let us be clear. There is no blazing, murderous maw into which Joe Lieberman would not be willing to feed someone else's child. There is no fiery death from above that he is not willing to inflict upon children in a distant land. The man could care less about the dead. He'd feed on them himself, if he could.

Fk him with a Hellfire.

Now that my throat's clear, let's start the day.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/joe-lieberman-syria-090213

Cheers
 
blutto said:
....gee seems like SoCal's tribe's echo chamber has no answers and now he is hammering the messenger....

...bereft of ideas I say, and as Chewie pointed out, reduced to playing cheap political games... sad indeed...

Cheers
Well cheap political games are over and I can only hope that we can find reasonable solutions, for which everyone must be held accountable.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
...interesting article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/03/teju-coles-9-questions-about-britain-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

....key quote from same...

_-------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldViews: What made you write this? What was the moment when you had the idea?

Teju Cole: I’m always thinking about alternative ways to think about the news, particularly where “the Other” is concerned. My first tweet–”US considers surgical strike on UK over sale of chemical weapons to Syria, but won’t seek regime change in London”–was just a straight reaction to the hypocrisy around weapons and punitive strikes (the question of who has a right to use which weapons was the chief pretext for the Iraq war). It seems to me that, without quite thinking it through, we’ve divided the world into two: countries we can imagine bombing and countries we can’t imagine bombing. It’s a question of imagination. The idea that the US would launch missiles into London in 2013 is beyond absurd. But the tragedy is that it’s all too easy to imagine the U.S. launching missiles into other cities in other places in the world. I wanted to bridge that gap, in the little drive-by way of troublemaking that Twitter allows.

WV: Obviously the U.S. is not going to bomb the U.K. But it may very well bomb Syria. How do you see that distinction and why call attention to it?

TC: I don’t like to make false equivalences. There’s a serious question here about the use of chemical weapons which is related to, but distinct from, their proliferation. I understand the difference between someone gassing a town and bombing it. To the dead and mourning, the difference is relative, not absolute, but there does seem to be an ontological shift in the violence there: chemical weapons are a new level of “indiscriminate.” Still, every weapon means different things is different from every other in terms of accuracy, morality, effectiveness, etc. Nuclear bombs, missiles, mines, drones, machine guns, etc, are, at heart, simply different technologies for one single awful goal: the killing of human beings, the increase of human suffering.

The argument that some are worse than others needs to be made, but we also need to say, “a pox on all their houses.” I think the Western world is too at ease with conventional weapons, ignoring the fact that the designation “conventional” is precisely that. The U.S. and its Western allies are eager to promote those weapons that underscore their own superiority. Take weaponized drones, for example, which are rapidly being sold and promoted and used throughout the world: an unmitigated horror for their victims, but for those who deploy them, it’s the dream of endlessly killing without facing any risk of being killed.

All that said, U.K.’s issuance of a license for the export of chemicals or holding arms trade fairs for whomever has the money does not not make Cameron a butcher like Assad. That’s one indelible truth. The fact that Cameron and Obama preside over needlessly vicious war machines is yet another. We can hold both thoughts in our heads at the same time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

....which leads to the following point...if the gas attack was indeed by the lung-eaters using gas supplied by Bander Bush when exactly is their destruction by cruise missiles gonna begin?....

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
rhubroma said:
It boils down to why is the most affluent society on earth able to contemplate a war with Syria, but not social healthcare? Ah the necessity of ideology, I can find no other. Other than prejudices, as someone once told.

At least that much is clear.

Though, one asks, was healthcare an option in the universal quest for power?
...allow me to expand of this a wee bit with the following...

----------------------------------------------------------------------


PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

CamdenWe live in a society that allows one man to make $15 million a day while a low-income mother gets $4.50 a day for food, and much of Congress wants to cut the $4.50.

Are political and corporate leaders even remotely aware of the conditions of society beneath the wealthiest 10% or so?

The following are some of the victims of an economic system that has forgotten the majority of its people.

Children

One out of every five American children now lives in poverty, and for black children it's nearly one out of TWO. Almost half of food stamp recipients are children.

UNICEF places us near the bottom of the developed world in the inequality of children's well-being, and the OECD found that we have more child poverty than all but 3 of 30 developed countries. It's rather embarrassing to view the charts.

Students

Over the last 12 years, according to a New York Times report, the United States has gone from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest. The number of college grads working for minimum wage has doubled in just five years.

Higher education was cut by nearly $17 billion in the years leading up to 2012-13. Through those same years large corporations were avoiding about $14 billion annually in taxes. To make up the difference, students face tuition costs that have risen almost ten times faster than median family income, leading them into their low-wage post-college positions with an average of $26,000 in student loan debt.

The Elderly

Three-quarters of Americans approaching retirement in 2010 had an average of less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The percentage of elderly (75 to 84) Americans experiencing poverty for the first time doubled from 2005 to 2009.

The folly of cutting Social Security is reflected in two facts. First, even though Social Security provides only an average benefit of $15,000, it accounts for 55 percent of annual income for the elderly. And second, seniors have spent their working lives paying for their retirement. According to the Urban Institute the average two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.

Wage Earners

Workers have 30% LESS buying power today than in 1968. If the minimum wage had kept up with employee productivity, it would be $16.54 per hour instead of $7.25.

Almost unimaginably, conditions for workers have gotten even worse since the recession. While 21 percent of job losses since 2008 were considered low-wage positions, 58 percent of jobs added during the recovery were considered low-wage.

As for members of Congress who say "get a job," only one of them was present at the start of a recent unemployment hearing.

The Sick and Disabled

Over 200 recent studies have confirmed a link between financial stress and sickness. In just 20 years America's ranking among developed countries dropped on nearly every major health measure. Victims suffer both physically and mentally. A recent study found that unemployment, whether voluntary or involuntary, can significantly impact a person's mental health. Even grimmer, from 1999 to 2010 the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 increased by almost 30 percent.

In the long run, the only Americans to increase their life expectancy have been seniors covered by Medicare.

Women

Recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that women earn just 80% of men's pay. In Washington, DC and California, Hispanic women make only 44 cents for every dollar made by white men. The only deviation from the norm is that in 47 of 50 large metropolitan areas, well-educated single childless women under 30 earn more than their male counterparts.

But the overall disparities have worsened since the recession, with only about one-fifth of new jobs going to women, and with median wealth for single black and Hispanic women falling to a little over $100. And there's no respite with advancing age. The average American woman's retirement account is 38 percent less than a man's, and women over 65 have twice the poverty rate of men.

Minorities

The Economist states: Before the 1960s...most blacks were poor, few served in public office and almost none were to be found flourishing at the nation's top universities, corporations, law firms and banks. None of that is true today.

Wrong. Much of that is true today. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), median wealth for black families in 2009 was $2,200, compared to $97,900 for white families. (Pew Research reported $5,677 for blacks, $113,149 for whites). EPI said median financial wealth (stocks, etc.) was $200 for blacks, compared to $36,100 for whites.

Since the recession, black and Hispanic wealth has dropped further, by 30 to 40 percent, while white family wealth dropped 11 percent.

Blacks and Hispanics, with 29% of the population, are also severely under-represented on corporate boards and in higher education.

One of the reasons it's so hard for young blacks to be successful is that they're viewed as criminals by many white authority figures. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander documents the explosion of the prison population for drug offenses, with blacks and Hispanics the main targets even though they use drugs at about the same -- or lesser -- rate as white Americans.

The Homeless

The super-rich want homeless people to get jobs. But they don't want to pay taxes to support job creation. If the richest Americans - the Forbes 400 - had paid a 5% tax on their 2012 investment earnings, enough revenue would have been generated to provide a full-time minimum wage job for every person who was homeless in America on a January night in 2012.

Instead, it keeps getting worse for the homeless. North Carolina made it a crime to feed them. Columbia, South Carolina approved a plan to remove them. Tampa, Florida passed a law that makes it a crime for them to sleep in public.

So who's left after all this? Oh yes, rich white men.

(Photo: Phillies1fan777)

---

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, a writer for progressive publications, and the founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org).

.......................................................................................................

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....so here is some of them real politics at work ( to make the world a better you understand )...file under I have nothing to hide but me and my monkey...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

New York Times Deletes This Paragraph In Which White House Says AIPAC Is Key To War

This was in the New York Times last night:

Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group Aipac was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called Aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”


It was originally in this story. Now it’s gone. Its only remnant is in the Times search engine. If you put in “gorilla,” it points you to this story. But the gorilla ain’t there.

Obviously the White House and/or AIPAC did not want to be caught saying that the reason we are attacking Syria is to show AIPAC, the “800 pound gorilla,” that we are serious about the war the lobby really craves: Iran.

But there it is. Or was.

AIPAC censorship even applies to the Times. Only in America (not Israel, where AIPAC’s power does not extend to Haaretz).

http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/03/new-york-times-deletes-this-paragraph-in-which-white-house-says-aipac-is-key-to-war/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

....btw the receding was just a fictional representation of a reality that has never or will ever exist....and the NYT says so ....

Cheers
 
blutto said:
...interesting article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/03/teju-coles-9-questions-about-britain-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

....key quote from same...

_-------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldViews: What made you write this? What was the moment when you had the idea?

Teju Cole: I’m always thinking about alternative ways to think about the news, particularly where “the Other” is concerned. My first tweet–”US considers surgical strike on UK over sale of chemical weapons to Syria, but won’t seek regime change in London”–was just a straight reaction to the hypocrisy around weapons and punitive strikes (the question of who has a right to use which weapons was the chief pretext for the Iraq war). It seems to me that, without quite thinking it through, we’ve divided the world into two: countries we can imagine bombing and countries we can’t imagine bombing. It’s a question of imagination. The idea that the US would launch missiles into London in 2013 is beyond absurd. But the tragedy is that it’s all too easy to imagine the U.S. launching missiles into other cities in other places in the world. I wanted to bridge that gap, in the little drive-by way of troublemaking that Twitter allows.

WV: Obviously the U.S. is not going to bomb the U.K. But it may very well bomb Syria. How do you see that distinction and why call attention to it?

TC: I don’t like to make false equivalences. There’s a serious question here about the use of chemical weapons which is related to, but distinct from, their proliferation. I understand the difference between someone gassing a town and bombing it. To the dead and mourning, the difference is relative, not absolute, but there does seem to be an ontological shift in the violence there: chemical weapons are a new level of “indiscriminate.” Still, every weapon means different things is different from every other in terms of accuracy, morality, effectiveness, etc. Nuclear bombs, missiles, mines, drones, machine guns, etc, are, at heart, simply different technologies for one single awful goal: the killing of human beings, the increase of human suffering.

The argument that some are worse than others needs to be made, but we also need to say, “a pox on all their houses.” I think the Western world is too at ease with conventional weapons, ignoring the fact that the designation “conventional” is precisely that. The U.S. and its Western allies are eager to promote those weapons that underscore their own superiority. Take weaponized drones, for example, which are rapidly being sold and promoted and used throughout the world: an unmitigated horror for their victims, but for those who deploy them, it’s the dream of endlessly killing without facing any risk of being killed.

All that said, U.K.’s issuance of a license for the export of chemicals or holding arms trade fairs for whomever has the money does not not make Cameron a butcher like Assad. That’s one indelible truth. The fact that Cameron and Obama preside over needlessly vicious war machines is yet another. We can hold both thoughts in our heads at the same time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

....which leads to the following point...if the gas attack was indeed by the lung-eaters using gas supplied by Bander Bush when exactly is their destruction by cruise missiles gonna begin?....

Cheers
All that said, U.K.’s issuance of a license for the export of chemicals or holding arms trade fairs for whomever has the money does not not make Cameron a butcher like Assad. That’s one indelible truth. The fact that Cameron and Obama preside over needlessly vicious war machines is yet another. We can hold both thoughts in our heads at the same time.

This last point boils down to who writes history. Why are Cameron and Assad to be treated differently? One gassed his people (?) the other provided the means?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
blutto said:
....gee seems like SoCal's tribe's echo chamber has no answers and now he is hammering the messenger....

...bereft of ideas I say, and as Chewie pointed out, reduced to playing cheap political games... sad indeed...

Cheers
Just waiting to be led is all. Just waiting.... anytime now a leader will emerge. Hopefully.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
It boils down to why is the most affluent society on earth able to contemplate a war with Syria, but not social healthcare? Ah the necessity of ideology, I can find no other. Other than prejudices, as someone once told.

At least that much is clear.

Though, one asks, was healthcare an option in the universal quest for power?
yes, by definition there can be no better way.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Like what? Give me some details please.
I'll give you the CliffsNotes version: I do not in any way support military intervention in Syria for any reason. His desire to undertake such intervention is abhorrent to me, and I do not support him in any way on that.

Scott SoCal said:
And there is a huge risk of escalation in the region due to the US being percieved as a paper tiger. Better to say little than make threats you have no intention of following through on.
"escalation?" Are you familiar with that region and that country? The danger there has nothing to do with the US, and everything to do with a plethora of historic, economic, and social conflicts that there are tomes written about. You think this is the straw that's going to break the camel's back? <- see what I did there? I think Obama's drone killings show the tiger has teeth, but you can ask the children who've been blown to bits what they think...

Scott SoCal said:
You have completely missed the point. First, I don't want the US to attack Syria. Second, we will end up attacking Syria because Obama has to back up his silly threats. I don't think there is a way out for Obama... from his own doing. The very thing you don't want to happen is going to happen. That wheel was set in motion after the red line speech.
Well, you said if Assad used chemical you would attack, so...Republicans will provide the way out because of their pathological hatred of anything that comes out of his mouth. If Hitler rose from the dead, and Obama wanted to take care of him in a battle of mythological proportions (I mean, we would be fighting the walking dead), Republicans would oppose any action on the grounds that Obama was the one wanting to undertake the battle.

Scott SoCal said:
And if I'm wrong about eventual attacks, then Obama still has lost the perception of power and has shown a particular weakness. Now, maybe that's a good thing... but as RetroActive has said: watch Israel.
The weakness argument is stupid. If he appears weak, it's because half of the country wants to impeach him for no reason what-so-ever, and the world knows that he cannot get anything done because the opposition is completely deranged. If we are weak, it's your party's fault.

Scott SoCal said:
You know what? By your own admission Obama deserves criticism... just not from people like me. It's not the substance of the criticism, it's that I'm (people on the wrong side of the aisle) are the one being critical.
No, it is the content of your criticism. Quit pretending otherwise. Your criticism is part of a political football game over future elections. Nothing more. Period.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Accuse the other side of what, in fact, your side is doing. How typical.

Didn't you just get done saying Obama going to congress for approval was a brilliant "political" move?

So can we now say Obama doesn't give a **** about the Syrians gassed?

It's always politics with your guy. With your guy. Govern much? Nope.
"Govern?" Coming from the party of the most insane, deranged, moronic Congressional delegation I have ever seen, you think R's know anything about "govern[ing]?" As I said, your political party is a clown car of idiocy and incompetence. In such a reality, your only option is to dance around with cymbals between your knees, and a kazoo in your mouths hooting and yelling about guy in the big top hat.

I may respect your opinions at times, but I have no respect for the politicians you carry water for. I think you probably feel the same.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Like what? Give me some details please.



And there is a huge risk of escalation in the region due to the US being percieved as a paper tiger. Better to say little than make threats you have no intention of following through on.

There is no risk of that. Paper tiger?' Reallly?

You have completely missed the point. First, I don't want the US to attack Syria. Second, we will end up attacking Syria because Obama has to back up his silly threats. I don't think there is a way out for Obama... from his own doing. The very thing you don't want to happen is going to happen. That wheel was set in motion after the red line speech
Ah Obama has to back his silly threats? As if serious threats were more cogent. Who's managing policy and why? I don't care, though what would a Republican do in this instance? Tell me?

And if I'm wrong about eventual attacks, then Obama still has lost the perception of power and has shown a particular weakness. Now, maybe that's a good thing... but as RetroActive has said: watch Israel.
You're concerned about power and "weakness," can you at least fathom a simple world, without privleges?[/QUOTE]

You know what? By your own admission Obama deserves criticism... just not from people like me. It's not the substance of the criticism, it's that I'm (people on the wrong side of the aisle) are the one being critical.[/QUOTE]

And there is a huge risk of escalation in the region due to the US being percieved as a paper tiger. Better to say little than make threats you have no intention of following through on.[/QUOTE]


There is no risk of that. Paper tiger?' Reallly?

You have completely missed the point. First, I don't want the US to attack Syria. Second, we will end up attacking Syria because Obama has to back up his silly threats. I don't think there is a way out for Obama... from his own doing. The very thing you don't want to happen is going to happen. That wheel was set in motion after the red line speech
Ah Obama has to back his silly threats? As if serious threats were more cogent. Who's managing policy and why? I don't care, though what would a Republican do in this instance? Tell me?

And if I'm wrong about eventual attacks, then Obama still has lost the perception of power and has shown a particular weakness. Now, maybe that's a good thing... but as RetroActive has said: watch Israel.
You're concerned about power and "weakness," though can you at least fathom a simple world, without privilege, s and the poor slobs who struggle every day?
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Just waiting to be led is all. Just waiting.... anytime now a leader will emerge. Hopefully.
You are absolutely right there, your party has no leaders. They sure as sh!t have a lot of insane morons though, so you got that goin' for ya'.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
...hmmmm....speaking of red lines and all...

"Obama’s ‘red line’ of chemical warfare has already been breached by the rebels on various occasions. One chemical weapons attack, for example, took place on 19 March in Khan al-Assal, near Aleppo. A UN investigation which included eye witness testimony concluded in May that sarin gas was used by rebels in the incident. Bu the American government, for some reasons, is not talking about that."

....looks like its time to warm up them thar humanitarian cruise missiles and save Syria from some bad gaseous hombres....

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I'll give you the CliffsNotes version: I do not in any way support military intervention in Syria for any reason. His desire to undertake such intervention is abhorrent to me, and I do not support him in any way on that.



"escalation?" Are you familiar with that region and that country? The danger there has nothing to do with the US, and everything to do with a plethora of historic, economic, and social conflicts that there are tomes written about. You think this is the straw that's going to break the camel's back? <- see what I did there? I think Obama's drone killings show the tiger has teeth, but you can ask the children who've been blown to bits what they think...



Well, you said if Assad used chemical you would attack, so...Republicans will provide the way out because of their pathological hatred of anything that comes out of his mouth. If Hitler rose from the dead, and Obama wanted to take care of him in a battle of mythological proportions (I mean, we would be fighting the walking dead), Republicans would oppose any action on the grounds that Obama was the one wanting to undertake the battle.



The weakness argument is stupid. If he appears weak, it's because half of the country wants to impeach him for no reason what-so-ever, and the world knows that he cannot get anything done because the opposition is completely deranged. If we are weak, it's your party's fault.



No, it is the content of your criticism. Quit pretending otherwise. Your criticism is part of a political football game over future elections. Nothing more. Period.
"escalation?" Are you familiar with that region and that country? The danger there has nothing to do with the US, and everything to do with a plethora of historic, economic, and social conflicts that there are tomes written about. You think this is the straw that's going to break the camel's back? <- see what I did there? I think Obama's drone killings show the tiger has teeth, but you can ask the children who've been blown to bits what they think...
Escalation? Yep. This morning's headlines: Unannounced Israel-U.S. missile test fuels jitters over Syria

I wonder when Iran will respond in kind?

Well, you said if Assad used chemical you would attack, so
The question was what would I do now. Now that the situation is FUBAR'd, what would I do now? Not what would I have done...

I'm not in a hurry to get into another middle east conflict but I don't think Obama (now) has a way out.

Republicans will provide the way out because of their pathological hatred of anything that comes out of his mouth.
Boehner: 'I'm Going to Support the President's Call for Action' in Syria

Cantor: 'I Intend to Vote to Provide the President of the United States the Option to Use Military Force in Syria'

I think the House R's are going to back the Prez. Hard to tell in the Senate, but I expect he'll get support there as well.

So, you are in quite a pickle here. You have a severe distaste for the tea party types but they may be what gives Obama the cover you are hoping he gets.

Strange allies, eh?

If he appears weak
It's because he is.

If we are weak, it's your party's fault
You mean since we run everything...:rolleyes:

No, it is the content of your criticism. Quit pretending otherwise. Your criticism is part of a political football game over future elections. Nothing more. Period
No it's not.

I'm going to go out on a limb here... but I think you probably will not see another R president for a long, long time. I will also say that your party will still control the Senate after the mid-terms and that the R's will lose the house by the 2016 elections. If the D's were going to lose significant power it would have been in 2012.

Nope, I'll be in the laughing gallery for several cycles especially once immigration reform (which I'm in favor of) is passed.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
"Govern?" Coming from the party of the most insane, deranged, moronic Congressional delegation I have ever seen, you think R's know anything about "govern[ing]?" As I said, your political party is a clown car of idiocy and incompetence. In such a reality, your only option is to dance around with cymbals between your knees, and a kazoo in your mouths hooting and yelling about guy in the big top hat.

I may respect your opinions at times, but I have no respect for the politicians you carry water for. I think you probably feel the same.
Not always.

I respect while disagreeing (much) with Joe Manchin. Max Baucus retiring is a bit of a shame. Andrew Cuomo is doing things in New York State. Susan Davis (from Cali, can you believe it??) seems to have a brain. In fact many of the new democrats seem to understand that a thriving economy can only be had by a thriving business community, a la Bill Clinton.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Escalation? Yep. This morning's headlines: Unannounced Israel-U.S. missile test fuels jitters over Syria

I wonder when Iran will respond in kind?



The question was what would I do now. Now that the situation is FUBAR'd, what would I do now? Not what would I have done...

I'm not in a hurry to get into another middle east conflict but I don't think Obama (now) has a way out.
You are aware that Romney and Ryan proposed the same "red line", eh?

This was the exchange from last year's vice presidential candidates' debate:

RADDATZ: What happens if Assad does not fall? Congressman Ryan, what happens to the region? What happens if he hangs on? What happens if he does?

RYAN: Then Iran keeps their greatest ally in the region. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He'll probably continue slaughtering his people. We and the world community will lose our credibility on this....

RADDATZ: So what would Romney-Ryan do about that credibility?

RYAN: Well, we agree with the same red line, actually, they do on chemical weapons, but not putting American troops in, other than to secure those chemical weapons. They're right about that.
And that Romney wanted to put US troops in Syria?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80128.html

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that he would send U.S. troops to Syria if needed to prevent the spread of chemical weapons.

"I think we have to also be ready to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that we do not have any kind of weapon of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists and whether that requires troops, or whether that requires other actions by our friends and allies," Romney said in an interview with CBS News.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Not always.

I respect while disagreeing (much) with Joe Manchin. Max Baucus retiring is a bit of a shame. Andrew Cuomo is doing things in New York State. Susan Davis (from Cali, can you believe it??) seems to have a brain. In fact many of the new democrats seem to understand that a thriving economy can only be had by a thriving business community, a la Bill Clinton.
Okay, I like Chris Christie...I'm searching hard for another one though if I'm honest.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Boehner: 'I'm Going to Support the President's Call for Action' in Syria

Cantor: 'I Intend to Vote to Provide the President of the United States the Option to Use Military Force in Syria'

I think the House R's are going to back the Prez. Hard to tell in the Senate, but I expect he'll get support there as well.

So, you are in quite a pickle here. You have a severe distaste for the tea party types but they may be what gives Obama the cover you are hoping he gets.
Remember me talking about a brilliant political move by Obama? Read the words you quoted again. Then watch and see what comes out the other end of this. Obama transferred the pickle. Now, the calculus has etched up a notch, and BO is in a win/win here because if they back him, he can talk about how right he was all along. If they don't, he has more political cover because he can't even get a policy to go play chickenhawk that Republicans support passed.

He really is better at this political game than Republicans, and it's funny to hear a Republican say it isn't a game for them. It's nothing but a political game for them. I can point you to the quotes if you'd like. BO is just better at it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS