Whatever negatives you can lob at Rand Paul for what he'd like to do about social services (and they're sizable negatives), Bill Clinton actually did it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/03/welfare-states-economic-safety-net-patchwork_n_748336.html
Bill Clinton is not a friend to We The People.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Correct, but that's not the same as "obama always was for Social Security Privatization", is it?
Candidate Obama was singing a different tune ( http://usliberals.about.com/od/2008candid
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Does anybody see the potential problems here with people being convicted wrongly due to evidence improperly collected by untrained civilians?
Or the guilty having their sentences overturned due to improper handling of evidence by civilians playing at forensics?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What do you think I've gotten wrong, Jay?
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama can can issue an executive order directing the Secretary of Defense to suspend homosexual conduct discharges. As Commander-in-Chief in a time of war, as a matter of national security, he can do basically anything he wants.
Obama can end DADT with an executive order (A group of experts in military law concluded Obama can end DADT with the stroke of a pen):
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf
Congress can continue to work on ending it through legislation, while individuals and groups go about ending it through the courts (the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit has taken 6 years to get to last week's decision in the federal court; it's nowhere near over).
There's no reason all can't happen simultaneously, and should.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And yet it's Obama & Democrats, behaving like Republicans, putting Social Security on the table for cuts and privatizing by his Debt Commission:
Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters:
Obama has filled his new 'debt commission' with Wall Street insiders determined to gut Social Security
http://www.alternet.org/story/146183/obama_pack s_debt_com mission_wi th_social_ security_looters?page=entire
Obama Packs Debt Commission With Social Security Privatization & Benefit Cut Supporters
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/
http://www.truth-out.org/obama-catfood-commissioner-threatens-small-town-with-nuclear-annihilation62852gt;
You don't put Social Security on the table at all before a 'Deficit Commission' (it's not in danger of going broke, to begin with) or put people like this on your commission if you weren't signaling that you're open to doing it.
And Chris Van Hollen made an interesting parsing slip on CNN about that very point (he never was the brightest color in the box -- Democratic voters are d00med if this is the future leadership of the party). Go hunt: http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/15/sotu.01.html
[Hint: "partial"]
Why isn't Gregory and everyone in the media demanding answers from ALL candidates and the White House?
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It's actually funny how Obama's 'most ardent supporters' believe that Republicans can get done with 41 seats in the Senate (stymie Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress, both Houses) what Democrats couldn't get done (stymie Bush as a minority party with a significantly greater number of seats than Republicans held from 2000-2006 than now, and later as the majority party of both Houses of Congress ever since).
In the election cycles from 2000 to today, Democrats had 51 senators, 49, 45, 51, and 60 in their caucus.
Democrats have everyone they need, to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They've not only had all the t00ls needed to do what they were put into power to do, they had a clear undisputed mandate of the voters, which is something that Bush & Cheney didn't have. Yet it didn't stop Bush & Cheney from pulling out all of the stops to get their agenda through.
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What do you think Obama is going to do after the November 2 elections if Republicans take control of one or both Houses of Congress?
Do you think he'll veto the legislation they pass (through reconciliation & every other means they can manage)? Do you think Obama will take to the bully pulpit, urge Americans to bury Republicans in email, phone calls, snail mail, & urge Democrats to block Republicans every way possible?
Or do you think that Obama's going to be making deal after deal with them, spinning what he can as somehow "Good for the People and Democrats", and/or, "I'm president of all the People, & the People in their infinite wisdom put Republicans in the majority, so I must honor their wishes & work with Republicans, & not try to obstruct their will"?
And if Democrats keep control of Congress? Do you think Obama's going to continue trying to work in a "bipartisan manner" with Republicans, keep flip-flopping on his campaign promises, & say that the election was a referendum on his trying "change the tone in Washington", and voters want him to do more of the same?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
WIth an EO, Obama can go a long way to healing some of the problems in this country in many different ways. It's good for gays, it's good for the military (we're having problems retaining troop strength, and gay soldiers skills' sets save all soldiers' lives), it's good for the war effort (it is "war time", or so we've been told often enough), it's good for the American people, and it's good for the world.
It also refocuses attention where it always should have been: The purpose of our military & our true state of preparedness.
How is it that this nation, that allegedly stands as a beacon for individual liberty & universal justice, can justify separating any competent professional soldiers from service for their sexual orientation in this time of war?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
One of the many benefits of an executive order ending DADT is that its implementation begins to knock down the fallacies that exist about gays serving in the military. It gets people used to it, which would go a long way in bringing this latest chapter in our nation's shameful history of big0try to a close, but not to an end.
You see, the House & Senate panel that passed a plan to repeal DADT, included a slick out-clause or backdoor. The plan by politicians in our 2-party system has always been to use gay rights as a wedge issue for both parties' base's turnout each election, kicking the can down the road as long as possible by keeping gay Americans disenfranchised.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-28/politics/gays.in.the.military_1_larger-defense-authorization-bill-repeal-white-house?_s=PM:POLITICS
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In December, when the Pentagon finishes its study on ending DADT and tells Congress that it should oppose ending DADT, what do you think Congress and Obama are going to do, no matter whose hands Congress is in? Do you think that a Democratically-controlled Congress is going to override the Pentagon's recommendation? Do you think Obama is going to ignore the Pentagon's recommendation and end DADT with the stroke of his pen (executive order)?
The largest part of the responsibility at this moment in US history goes to Obama. We each must do what we can, and with what a president can do (a lot), the buck stops at Obama.
There is no higher authority in the US than our government. Three co-equal branches, one of which (the executive branch) has authority and control over most of the US government. It's unconscionable that a president of the United States has allowed any department of government under his authority to practice discrimination. Every day that big0ted government policies like DADT continue is the government giving a nod and a wink to the most ig.no.rant among us, and saying that gays are lesser Americans and not deserving of the full rights and responsibilities of citizens.
When the president obfuscates and avoids doing what he can, what is within his power and ability to end discrimination against one group of Americans, it's a cowardly dereliction of duty.
He's the Role-Model-in-Chief, and it's scandalous.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The wheels are off the cart, and the only people who are required to obey the law are the little people. We The People.
Obama's DoJ is busy covering up Bush's and Cheney's tracks, and continuing the Bush-Cheney DoJ's agenda.
Because there's no other way to explain how a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminal and corrupt administration in the nation's history, doesn't replace Bush-era US attorneys. And this is what Obama's US attorneys are spending their time on (instead of returning the democracy to the American people by investigating and prosecuting those behind the greatest economic heist in the history of the world, war crimes, t0rture, etc.) -- Bush-style obscenity prosecutions:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_691667.html
FYI - Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administration. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the Bush administration).
Why didn't Obama? He's either inept or corrupt. Taking everything else that he's done to advance the Bush-Cheney agenda, I say he's corrupt. Got a great smile, though, and delivers a good speech.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And as long as you're here, speaking on behalf of this president, how does any Democratic voter defend Obama after he asserts he has the right to k!ll any American citizen with no due process or oversight? And 'prevention detention'? And his claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program?
If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his actions would know that his most ardent supporters' belts don't go through all the loops for supporting what they claim to loathe about Republican. But the 'D' after Obama's name is a brand they believe and trust in (as did I), despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product) as what Bush & Cheney gave us. And worse.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
While we're on the subject of Obama's not being who Democratic voters thought he was, perhaps you would like to take a stab at answering this, Jeanne:
How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminal and corrupt administration in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? This is what Obama's US attorneys do instead of returning the democracy to the American people -- Instead we get Bush-style obscenity prosecutions:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_691667.html
FYI - Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administration. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the Bush administration).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This president and this congress perpetuate it.
As president and Commander-in-Chief, can end DADT with an executive order (A group of experts in military law concluded Obama can end DADT with the stroke of a pen):
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf
It's unconscionable that a president of the US has allowed any department of government under his authority to practice discrimination. Every day that big0ted government policies like DADT continue is the government giving a nod and a wink to the most ig.no.rant among us, and saying that gays are lesser Americans and not deserving of the full rights and responsibilities of citizens.
Congress can continue to work on ending it through legislation, while individuals and groups go about ending it through the courts (the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit has taken 6 years to get to last week's decision in the federal court; it's nowhere near over).
There's no reason all can't happen simultaneously, and should.
As well, Obama's DoJ has filed briefs defending DOMA in the court challenge of DOMA advancing legal arguments that, if pursued by the courts, could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights (that homosexuality is the equivalent of incest and pedophilia/child rape).
Contrary to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' excuse, the DoJ had no obligation to file a brief in favor of DOMA ( http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html ).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And Obama's DoJ has filed briefs defending DOMA in the court challenge of DOMA advancing legal arguments that, if pursued by the courts, could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights (that homosexuality is the equivalent of incest and pedophilia/child rape).
Contrary to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' excuse, the DoJ had no obligation to file a brief in favor of DOMA ( http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html ).
While we're on the subject of Obama's not being who Democratic voters thought he was, how does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminal and corrupt administration in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? This is what Obama's US attorneys do instead of returning the democracy to the American people -- Instead we get Bush-style obscenity prosecutions:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_691667.html
FYI - Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administration. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the Bush administration).
Why didn't Obama? He's either corrupt or inept. Taking everything else that he's done to advance the Bush-Cheney agenda, I say he's corrupt. Got a great smile, though, and delivers a good speech.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
As president and Commander-in-Chief, can end DADT with an executive order (A group of experts in military law concluded Obama can end DADT with the stroke of a pen):
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf
It's unconscionable that a president of the US has allowed any department of government under his authority to practice discrimination. Every day that big0ted government policies like DADT continue is the government giving a nod and a wink to the most ig.no.rant among us, and saying that gays are lesser Americans and not deserving of the full rights and responsibilities of citizens.
Congress can continue to work on ending it through legislation, while individuals and groups go about ending it through the courts (the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit has taken 6 years to get to last week's decision in the federal court; it's nowhere near over).
There's no reason all can't happen simultaneously, and should.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Anybody know what book it was?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This kept real coverage of the campaign out of the news.
Nobody is asking real questions to either party's candidates.
I'm sure both parties love it.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Ask any gay person which they would prefer to have to deal with:
The Archie Bunker homoph0be or the member of Congress and president who have made DOMA and DADT the law of the land, prohibiting gays from enjoying the rights and benefits that every other citizen has in the US.
All that Carl Paladino is now (and has ever been) is a homoph0bic clown in no position and with no power to enforce his beliefs over others.
Congress and the president have made discrimination against gays the law of the land.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
So depriving gays of rights, discriminating against them with laws, is all right; it's just all of the showy 'distasteful' extras (photoshopped pix, etc.), that's the problem.
I get it.
That's why the N@zis put concentration camps out in the countryside, away from view of 'regular' citizens. Same principle.
You people have got to wake the f**k up.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You're going to have to come up with more than insults.
All that Carl Paladino is now (and has ever been) is a homoph0be in no position and with no power to enforce his beliefs over others.
Congress and the president have made discrimination against gays the law of the land.
In the US, we discuss and debate. If you can't explain the difference as you see it, you lose the argument.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Try. Go ahead.
Ask any gay person which they would prefer to have to deal with:
The Archie Bunker homoph0be or the member of Congress and president who have made DOMA and DADT the law of the land, prohibiting gays from enjoying the rights and benefits that every other citizen has in the US.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No, they don't need to hate that which they have power over and can deprive legislatively.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
We have a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House that refuses to repeal DADT and DOMA.
How are they really any different than Paladino?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
American soldiers are using Iraqi uniforms and vehicles as part of "a blatant switch tactic" adopted by the Obama administration, a senior political analyst says.
"The fact that Americans are found to be wearing Iraqi uniforms in Iraqi military vehicles looks like it's a complete, blatant switch tactic where it was announced with much fanfare that the US was ending its combat mission in Iraq, and now we find US troops still engaged in combat missions in Iraqi uniforms," investigative journalist Wayne Madsen said in an interview with Press TV.
He said the news was not surprising to him as it was "typical" of US President Barack Obama to follow some of the “same covert programs” seen during Bush's term in office.
Madsen said there is "absolutely no control" over private military contractors, citing the involvement of such firms in smuggling weapons into Iraq.
Iraq's Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al-Asadi said that a US-Iraqi agreement requires the American troops to stay on their bases and avoid moving around unless they are permitted by the Iraqi government and escorted by the Iraqi army.
However, reports from Iraq indicate that the American troops are moving around without being escorted by the Iraq's security forces, using Iraqi army uniforms and vehicles as a disguise.
The news comes after the US announced an end to its combat mission in Iraq at the end of August, seven years after it invaded the country.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/145713.html
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And in Iraq:
== Those who believe the hype that the U.S. has left Iraq should have a word with Joe Wilson. The husband of Valerie Plame, whose CIA cover was blown by the Bush administration, helped his missus navigate the glitz at the Cinema Society special screening of the movie about her ordeal, "Fair Game," at MoMA on Wednesday night.
But his mind was on weightier issues. "I just came back from Baghdad. And it's a mess. And I would really like to see us talk about why the f--- we're in there," Wilson told us. "We have 50,000 kids there. What are they doing?"
Remarkably, Wilson said, "I spent 45 minutes in Baghdad trying to find a T-shirt that wasn't racist or bellicose" to the point of being offensive. "When all you've got is T-shirts being sold to soldiers [that read] ‘K!ll R@gheads,'" Wilson wondered, "where in that construct is, ‘We're here to help bring democracy to your nation?'" ==
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/10/08/2010-10-08_joe_wil
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
