What does Rachel Maddow have to say about it?

Beats me, I'm too busy figuring out the activity of iron metal in wustite at variable fO2 and temperature.

Beats me, I'm too busy figuring out the activity of iron metal in wustite at variable fO2 and temperature.

Stephen Chu can help you with that

Stephen Chu can help you with that

You know, that reminds me, he gave the commencement address here last week and I was meaning to see if the video was online.

You're capable of rational thought, obviously. I'm just spoon-fed. I'm unable to interpret on my own whether or not the U.S. government saying it actively supports Iran would be a good thing or a bad thing.

The problem is, Balta, that Obama already did, sort of, on Friday - he was pretty damn quick on the trigger when he thought he could take credit for Imanutjob possibly being defeated (of course, it all had to do with his Cairo speech - arrogane piece of s***, but that's another post somewhere else.

 

You can make a nice, generic statement, which is pretty much exactly what Mike Pence did, saying that the US does not support violence or repression - and let's be fair about it - which we all know won't happen anyway. That's it. You don't "pick sides" by saying that. Saying NOTHING does pick a side, because honestly, Obama has something to say about everything in the world to any camera that moves but he can't talk about this? He's already got skin in the game by promoting the fact that he will engage the (current) regime no matter what, even if they brutally kill people who dare oppose them in their own country.

My opinion is that Obama is keeping his mouth shut so as not to give Ahmadinejad any momentum.

 

Right now Ahmadinejad is still speaking out against the West and US. If the US stays silent its hard for him to use his "Western threat" rhetoric which has been good at rallying his base.

 

I think silence is the most prudent decision.

 

It's all in how you're spoon fed.

Coming from the guy who's been in lock step with every GOP talking point since 1975.

The problem is, Balta, that Obama already did, sort of, on Friday - he was pretty damn quick on the trigger when he thought he could take credit for Imanutjob possibly being defeated (of course, it all had to do with his Cairo speech - arrogane piece of s***, but that's another post somewhere else.

 

You can make a nice, generic statement, which is pretty much exactly what Mike Pence did, saying that the US does not support violence or repression - and let's be fair about it - which we all know won't happen anyway. That's it. You don't "pick sides" by saying that. Saying NOTHING does pick a side, because honestly, Obama has something to say about everything in the world to any camera that moves but he can't talk about this? He's already got skin in the game by promoting the fact that he will engage the (current) regime no matter what, even if they brutally kill people who dare oppose them in their own country.

Why don't you just admit that this is one of those scenarios that no matter what the Obama administration does or does not do, you and the GOP pundits have an excuse to rip him to shreds.

This morning I was going to b**** about a Justice Department decision yesterday concerning gay rights where they compared it to incest, and how the Obama administration's direction with gay rights was annoying me so far (gays in the military notwithstanding, I defended him earlier on that). Then, almost as if they knew already, theydid this, letting partners of federal employees receive benefits. Hey, it's a start.

Coming from the guy who's been in lock step with every GOP talking point since 1975.

Then you clearly don't know how to read. I disagree with the GOP quite a bit, actually.

Edited June 17, 200916 yr by kapkomet

Why don't you just admit that this is one of those scenarios that no matter what the Obama administration does or does not do, you and the GOP pundits have an excuse to rip him to shreds.

No one else dares question Comrade Obama... *clicks heels three times and goosesteps to 'Hail to the Chief'* all while saying "there's no place like Washington" over and over.

 

 

No one else dares question Comrade Obama... *clicks heels three times and goosesteps to 'Hail to the Chief'* all while saying "there's no place like Washington" over and over.

 

 

You should really go read Huffpo comments sometime, all they do is b****.

Hey Balta, here's an alley-oop. Dunk this.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/...army/index.html

Edited June 17, 200916 yr by lostfan

This morning I was going to b**** about a Justice Department decision yesterday concerning gay rights where they compared it to incest and stated that, and how the Obama administration's direction with gay rights was annoying me so far (gays in the military notwithstanding, I defended him earlier on that). Then, almost as if they knew already, theydid this, letting partners of federal employees receive benefits. Hey, it's a start.

 

Except DOMA prohibits most benefits. Except relocation. It's kind of a s***ty sop move. We compare homosexuality to incest then we'll pretend to throw gay couples a nonexistent bone. Obama was never strong on gay rights issues. The truth is that gay organizations got behind people like Obama and Hillary during the primary for no good reason whatsoever, because anyone with a brain knew that they'd be sold right down the river at the first opportunity. Instead, they spurned Richardson who was the only major candidate to strongly back equality for GLBT Americans because he misspoke in a forum and said that being gay is a choice. (He meant to say, and his policies at the time backed him up - I don't care if it's a choice.) Maybe they spurned him because he's a lady toucher although, as Ensign's recent admission holds true - who isn't? Or maybe they spurned him because they didn't think he was sexy enough - because for too many people in my GLBT community, if it isn't another episode of "Dynasty," who cares?

 

Obama's administration sold out gay people with the DOMA defense brief. Is it expected? Should have been. Is it an awful brief? Hell yeah. Is there a lot of fake outrage over a brief that the President probably never read or even thought about? Most definitely.

 

 

Then you clearly don't know how to read. I disagree with the GOP quite a bit, actually.

That's hard for me to know since it seems you spend 98% of your time on this board in the Dem thread bashing Dems and their policies.

Hey Balta, here's an alley-oop. Dunk this.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/...army/index.html

I twisted my knee last night and can't play right now.

 

Plus, in a few months I'm hoping to officially be Dr. J., and I figure that has to dramatically improve my game right?

 

Anyway, there's really nothing shocking about that article to me, it's not been a secret that the militia movement has for years wanted to get its people in to the military so that they can get free training that they can bring back to their movements. I'm sure the DHS report mentioned it, but that's been out there for years. Decades even. I'd argue that right now it's probably actually better than it was a few years ago, because we're no longer having to slash recruiting standards as much as we were in 2006 when things in Iraq were going so badly.

I twisted my knee last night and can't play right now.

 

Plus, in a few months I'm hoping to officially be Dr. J., and I figure that has to dramatically improve my game right?

 

Anyway, there's really nothing shocking about that article to me, it's not been a secret that the militia movement has for years wanted to get its people in to the military so that they can get free training that they can bring back to their movements. I'm sure the DHS report mentioned it, but that's been out there for years. Decades even. I'd argue that right now it's probably actually better than it was a few years ago, because we're no longer having to slash recruiting standards as much as we were in 2006 when things in Iraq were going so badly.

As you said, it's a commonly accepted fact. But part of the process of grasping at straws to find things to manufacture outrage about is the suspension of belief or the willful omission of things you already know.

As you said, it's a commonly accepted fact. But part of the process of grasping at straws to find things to manufacture outrage about is the suspension of belief or the willful omission of things you already know.

On the other hand, I could also note that I have no problem with the reporter/news org running the story and trying to whip up outrage...it's one of those things that's out there, that people who pay attention know about, but that we really need to keep vigilant about. Especially with the way those movements are whipping things up right now on their own.

 

There's usually a cycle of stories like that which come through on your evening news if you watch that...every year or two they basically recycle the same story on some topic because it's something you actually do need to keep an eye on and it makes good time filler.

Liz Cheney:

"...I would say one of the things that is troubling to Americans, I think, is extent to which this administration is focused on the president's popularity overseas. We've now seen several different occasions when he's been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.' Instead we've seen him do what we saw him do in the speech in Cairo, which is sort of, 'on one hand this, on the other hand that,' and then attempt to put himself sort of above it all. I think that troubles people."

You know, aside from the fact that Obama not being willing to say "I believe in American exceptionalism" being flat-out false, I'm not sure what the critics really expect Obama to say if this is really what they believe (and they do). They essentially want him to come out in front of these foreign crowds and say "We are better than you, we are perfect, we have never made any mistakes or contributed to any problems. The sooner you recognize this, the better." Coming up short of doing that is "apologizing" or "bending over" or whatever the hell.

 

Isn't there some kind of clinical psychological condition for this kind of behavior, where you need to constantly assert your superiority and sense of self-importance?

Edited June 17, 200916 yr by lostfan

Liz Cheney:

 

You know, aside from the fact that Obama not being willing to say "I believe in American exceptionalism" being flat-out false, I'm not sure what the critics really expect Obama to say if this is really what they believe (and they do). They essentially want him to come out in front of these foreign crowds and say "We are better than you, we are perfect, we have never made any mistakes or contributed to any problems. The sooner you recognize this, the better." Coming up short of doing that is "apologizing" or "bending over" or whatever the hell.

 

Isn't there some kind of clinical psychological condition for this kind of behavior, where you need to constantly assert your superiority and sense of self-importance?

 

I am now convinced that Dick Cheney is the dude from Total Recall that had Kuato growing from his abdomen. I think Liz Cheney was growing on his side and eventually detached from the host body.

 

I do want to give Obama credit for one thing, if this is true:

 

Supposedly, he called Twitter, who had scheduled a maintenance window during all this Iran stuff, and asked them to postpone their server work so that the Iranian people could continue to communicate. I guess this is one of the main ways that the Iranians have been able to communicate and their government can't shut down as easily.

 

If he did this, yep, that's "meddling", and I approve. And I'm posting it here so you Dems see this.

I think that was Hillary Clinton, but yeah, probably with Obama's blessing.

That Pence dude is pure genius.

That Pence dude is pure genius.

That's Michele Bachmann territory.

This is great, Fox News, and Karl Rove, grumbling that a news agency (ABC) is being given close access to the president.

 

 

Ya know, cause Fox NEVER got special treatment or talking points.

This is great, Fox News, and Karl Rove, grumbling that a news agency (ABC) is being given close access to the president.

 

 

Ya know, cause Fox NEVER got special treatment or talking points.

BUSTED!!