The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Tyrones own]

*Shakes head*
The arrogance and complete idiocy of this fraud knows no limits...absolutely oblivious to anyone but himself , clown

Another stunning piece of fake outrage. Or maybe your paranoia and derangement are really that serious?

It couldn't possibly be that they were standing there for a minute posing, and Obama just happened to briefly wave to someone before he thought the photo was being taking , could it? He seems fine a few seconds later (or maybe it was before)...



But no, it has to be the "Tyrone's Own worst possible paranoid interpretation because the person is not a far right conservative" interpretation.

Mildly embarrassing for Obama, at worst. You should be embarrassed though, rushing in here to post this type of silly over-the-top nonsense, as usual.

Outrage...what outrage? I'm laughing at him ffs.
Ah sure maybe he was just getting in a little practice for the upcoming swearing in ceremony in '13, someone should let him know real soon that that won't be necessary 

[Tyrones own]

I am watching the Republican Presidential Debate in Florida and the candidates are extremely weak on their responses with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Herman Cain. As a Democratic voter, Paul/Cain would seem the best of the group, I would seriously consider the ticket of the those two. The other candidates just bring across an arrogance and fluff answers with no true substantial information. I have voted across party lines in the past for who I thought would represent me best in government and will continue to do so in the future BUT the Republican Party members continue to show anti-Democrat attitudes. Instead of working with democrats the republicans sure show that they hope everything the Dems do will fail. Why not work together? If the Dems fail guess what the whole country fails. It makes me sick that people who want to serve the country hope that one party will fail while using this as a platform for their party.

Perry and Romney sure look and sound like Baptist Preachers who are being used as puppets, my opinion.

That said...would I be correct in in saying that you belong to the small minority of voters that think this Country is headed in the right direction?

[muppet]

It's particularly ironic that none of ye seem to have any problem
finding the faults of a bunch of wannabees yet completely awol on the glaring faults and consistent failings of the man that actually holds the office 
Pathetic actually!

Like you during the Dubya fiasco?

[Tyrones own]

It's particularly ironic that none of ye seem to have any problem
finding the faults of a bunch of wannabees yet completely awol on the glaring faults and consistent failings of the man that actually holds the office 
Pathetic actually!

Like you during the Dubya fiasco?

Really?...explain.

[thejuice]

[muppet]

It's particularly ironic that none of ye seem to have any problem
finding the faults of a bunch of wannabees yet completely awol on the glaring faults and consistent failings of the man that actually holds the office 
Pathetic actually!

Like you during the Dubya fiasco?

Really?...explain.

Oops, sorry I though you were the one true defender of everything Dubya on this board for most of a decade while blaming everything on Clinton. My mistake.

[Tyrones own]

It's particularly ironic that none of ye seem to have any problem
finding the faults of a bunch of wannabees yet completely awol on the glaring faults and consistent failings of the man that actually holds the office 
Pathetic actually!

Like you during the Dubya fiasco?

Really?...explain.

Oops, sorry I though you were the one true defender of everything Dubya on this board for most of a decade while blaming everything on Clinton. My mistake.

Apology accepted....one of days you'll get it right

[Eamonnca1]

The Republican debate
A missed opportunity
Sep 23rd 2011, 17:48 by R.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

EVER since Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment in the 1992 campaign, candidates have often tried to distinguish themselves from the fringes of their parties with moments of seemingly exceptional candour. The best politicians can use these moments to signal their moderation to centrist voters, while not really offending anyone of any importance. Mr Clinton perfected the move. And I think some of the Republican candidates missed an opening for such a moment last night.

A little over halfway through the debate, a gay soldier appeared before the candidates (via video from Iraq) to ask their opinion on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As you can hear in the video above, the question was booed by some classy folks in the audience. Responsibility for the answer was unfortunately handed over to Rick Santorum, who stumbled over himself before declaring that the policy should be reinstated. I expected as much from Mr Santorum. What surprised me was the silence that followed his answer.

As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out, it was a highly unusual moment.

"I'm still repulsed thinking about the question from the gay soldier last night, but one small observation—this is the only instance I can recall in which an active duty service member was not thanked for his service. Every time politicians interact with military personnel, they fall all over themselves thanking "the brave men and women of our armed forces, and their families.""

According to the latest poll I could find, from December 2010, nearly half of Republicans supported repealing DADT. An earlier poll, where the question was worded differently, showed even stronger support for allowing gays to serve openly, with 58% of Republicans in favour. Now perhaps it is foolish to expect one of the candidates to step out on a limb (a pretty sturdy limb it seems) and stand up for the repeal of DADT, but why did none of the candidates jump into this void and, at the very least, thank the soldier for his service? Would it have been that risky to say that no American soldier deserves to be booed by a crowd enjoying the freedoms he defends? It struck me as an opportunity for one of the candidates to distinguish himself. And it had the bonus of being the morally right thing to do. Alas, no one on stage proved nearly as courageous as the gay soldier they hung out to dry last night.

The Economist

[Tyrones own]

The Republican debate
A missed opportunity
Sep 23rd 2011, 17:48 by R.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

EVER since Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment in the 1992 campaign, candidates have often tried to distinguish themselves from the fringes of their parties with moments of seemingly exceptional candour. The best politicians can use these moments to signal their moderation to centrist voters, while not really offending anyone of any importance. Mr Clinton perfected the move. And I think some of the Republican candidates missed an opening for such a moment last night.

A little over halfway through the debate, a gay soldier appeared before the candidates (via video from Iraq) to ask their opinion on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As you can hear in the video above, the question was booed by some classy folks in the audience. Responsibility for the answer was unfortunately handed over to Rick Santorum, who stumbled over himself before declaring that the policy should be reinstated. I expected as much from Mr Santorum. What surprised me was the silence that followed his answer.

As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out, it was a highly unusual moment.

"I'm still repulsed thinking about the question from the gay soldier last night, but one small observation—this is the only instance I can recall in which an active duty service member was not thanked for his service. Every time politicians interact with military personnel, they fall all over themselves thanking "the brave men and women of our armed forces, and their families.""

According to the latest poll I could find, from December 2010, nearly half of Republicans supported repealing DADT. An earlier poll, where the question was worded differently, showed even stronger support for allowing gays to serve openly, with 58% of Republicans in favour. Now perhaps it is foolish to expect one of the candidates to step out on a limb (a pretty sturdy limb it seems) and stand up for the repeal of DADT, but why did none of the candidates jump into this void and, at the very least, thank the soldier for his service? Would it have been that risky to say that no American soldier deserves to be booed by a crowd enjoying the freedoms he defends? It struck me as an opportunity for one of the candidates to distinguish himself. And it had the bonus of being the morally right thing to do. Alas, no one on stage proved nearly as courageous as the gay soldier they hung out to dry last night.

The Economist

Ah FFS dry your crocodile tears why don't ye  ...  gay or no gay, you Anti-American haters
would be dancing in the streets if the US Military were gone in the morning...who do you think
you're fooling with your sudden opportunistic, straw man concern 

[heganboy]

i assumed based on tax policy that most republicans must kind of expect the US military to be gone in the morning because they certainly don't seem to want to collect any taxes to pay for it.

[J70]

The Republican debate
A missed opportunity
Sep 23rd 2011, 17:48 by R.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

EVER since Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment in the 1992 campaign, candidates have often tried to distinguish themselves from the fringes of their parties with moments of seemingly exceptional candour. The best politicians can use these moments to signal their moderation to centrist voters, while not really offending anyone of any importance. Mr Clinton perfected the move. And I think some of the Republican candidates missed an opening for such a moment last night.

A little over halfway through the debate, a gay soldier appeared before the candidates (via video from Iraq) to ask their opinion on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As you can hear in the video above, the question was booed by some classy folks in the audience. Responsibility for the answer was unfortunately handed over to Rick Santorum, who stumbled over himself before declaring that the policy should be reinstated. I expected as much from Mr Santorum. What surprised me was the silence that followed his answer.

As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out, it was a highly unusual moment.

"I'm still repulsed thinking about the question from the gay soldier last night, but one small observation—this is the only instance I can recall in which an active duty service member was not thanked for his service. Every time politicians interact with military personnel, they fall all over themselves thanking "the brave men and women of our armed forces, and their families.""

According to the latest poll I could find, from December 2010, nearly half of Republicans supported repealing DADT. An earlier poll, where the question was worded differently, showed even stronger support for allowing gays to serve openly, with 58% of Republicans in favour. Now perhaps it is foolish to expect one of the candidates to step out on a limb (a pretty sturdy limb it seems) and stand up for the repeal of DADT, but why did none of the candidates jump into this void and, at the very least, thank the soldier for his service? Would it have been that risky to say that no American soldier deserves to be booed by a crowd enjoying the freedoms he defends? It struck me as an opportunity for one of the candidates to distinguish himself. And it had the bonus of being the morally right thing to do. Alas, no one on stage proved nearly as courageous as the gay soldier they hung out to dry last night.

The Economist

Can't be seen to be going against the good christian real Americans by standing up for the gay soldier. The same people who cheer the Texas execution rate and allowing people without health insurance to die.

[Tyrones own]

i assumed based on tax policy that most republicans must kind of expect the US military to be gone in the morning because they certainly don't seem to want to collect any taxes to pay for it.

Why don't you ask one... but you being a tax and spend democrat, when will enough ever be enough to keep pace with your outrageous, unsustainable spending

[Tyrones own]

The Republican debate
A missed opportunity
Sep 23rd 2011, 17:48 by R.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

EVER since Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment in the 1992 campaign, candidates have often tried to distinguish themselves from the fringes of their parties with moments of seemingly exceptional candour. The best politicians can use these moments to signal their moderation to centrist voters, while not really offending anyone of any importance. Mr Clinton perfected the move. And I think some of the Republican candidates missed an opening for such a moment last night.

A little over halfway through the debate, a gay soldier appeared before the candidates (via video from Iraq) to ask their opinion on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As you can hear in the video above, the question was booed by some classy folks in the audience. Responsibility for the answer was unfortunately handed over to Rick Santorum, who stumbled over himself before declaring that the policy should be reinstated. I expected as much from Mr Santorum. What surprised me was the silence that followed his answer.

As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out, it was a highly unusual moment.

"I'm still repulsed thinking about the question from the gay soldier last night, but one small observation—this is the only instance I can recall in which an active duty service member was not thanked for his service. Every time politicians interact with military personnel, they fall all over themselves thanking "the brave men and women of our armed forces, and their families.""

According to the latest poll I could find, from December 2010, nearly half of Republicans supported repealing DADT. An earlier poll, where the question was worded differently, showed even stronger support for allowing gays to serve openly, with 58% of Republicans in favour. Now perhaps it is foolish to expect one of the candidates to step out on a limb (a pretty sturdy limb it seems) and stand up for the repeal of DADT, but why did none of the candidates jump into this void and, at the very least, thank the soldier for his service? Would it have been that risky to say that no American soldier deserves to be booed by a crowd enjoying the freedoms he defends? It struck me as an opportunity for one of the candidates to distinguish himself. And it had the bonus of being the morally right thing to do. Alas, no one on stage proved nearly as courageous as the gay soldier they hung out to dry last night.

The Economist

Can't be seen to be going against the good christian real Americans by standing up for the gay soldier. The same people who cheer the Texas execution rate and allowing people without health insurance to die.

More Croc tears... actually beginning to scrape the barrel now in desperation 

[J70]

The Republican debate
A missed opportunity
Sep 23rd 2011, 17:48 by R.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

EVER since Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment in the 1992 campaign, candidates have often tried to distinguish themselves from the fringes of their parties with moments of seemingly exceptional candour. The best politicians can use these moments to signal their moderation to centrist voters, while not really offending anyone of any importance. Mr Clinton perfected the move. And I think some of the Republican candidates missed an opening for such a moment last night.

A little over halfway through the debate, a gay soldier appeared before the candidates (via video from Iraq) to ask their opinion on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As you can hear in the video above, the question was booed by some classy folks in the audience. Responsibility for the answer was unfortunately handed over to Rick Santorum, who stumbled over himself before declaring that the policy should be reinstated. I expected as much from Mr Santorum. What surprised me was the silence that followed his answer.

As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out, it was a highly unusual moment.

"I'm still repulsed thinking about the question from the gay soldier last night, but one small observation—this is the only instance I can recall in which an active duty service member was not thanked for his service. Every time politicians interact with military personnel, they fall all over themselves thanking "the brave men and women of our armed forces, and their families.""

According to the latest poll I could find, from December 2010, nearly half of Republicans supported repealing DADT. An earlier poll, where the question was worded differently, showed even stronger support for allowing gays to serve openly, with 58% of Republicans in favour. Now perhaps it is foolish to expect one of the candidates to step out on a limb (a pretty sturdy limb it seems) and stand up for the repeal of DADT, but why did none of the candidates jump into this void and, at the very least, thank the soldier for his service? Would it have been that risky to say that no American soldier deserves to be booed by a crowd enjoying the freedoms he defends? It struck me as an opportunity for one of the candidates to distinguish himself. And it had the bonus of being the morally right thing to do. Alas, no one on stage proved nearly as courageous as the gay soldier they hung out to dry last night.

The Economist

Can't be seen to be going against the good christian real Americans by standing up for the gay soldier. The same people who cheer the Texas execution rate and allowing people without health insurance to die.

More Croc tears... actually beginning to scrape the barrel now in desperation 

You might have a point if I ever condemned supporting military members, gay rights, abolishing capital punishment or providing emergency healthcare for uninsured. Unfortunately I have not, so your point, such as it is, is utter shit and has nothing to do with anything I've ever expressed here.

It is interesting, and true to form though, despite all your protestations about other people doing it with respect to Obama, that you've nothing to say on those incidents at the Republican primaries other than shooting the messengers!

[J70]

"If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought here by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," Perry said at Thursday's Fox News/Google debate in Orlando.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/perry-struggles-to-defend-his-front-runner-status-in-gop-race/#ixzz1Yt88PvIJ

Well said Rick Perry! Unfortunately for him, along with his correct stance on the HPV vaccine (whatever his motivation was), its not too popular a view with the average GOP primary voter!