The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Tyrones own]

For TO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHeXm7t-aAY

Have some one show you where California is on a map 

[Tyrones own]

"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.

Let me put it this way;
"If at 20 you're not a liberal, you don't have a heart
If at 40 you still a liberal, you don't have a brain"
It's the thinking with the bleeding heart that has us in
the hole we're in...time to start using the head and being
realistic.
Enough of this heart horse shite, people are sick of it!

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

John F Kennedy[/b]

Ah yes, but;
No matter how great the intentions...one must occasionally
look at the results 
-T.O

[Eamonnca1]

I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Tyrone's Own, you're no Jack Kennedy.

[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.

Let me put it this way;
"If at 20 you're not a liberal, you don't have a heart
If at 40 you still a liberal, you don't have a brain"
It's the thinking with the bleeding heart that has us in
the hole we're in...time to start using the head and being
realistic.
Enough of this heart horse shite, people are sick of it!

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

John F Kennedy[/b]

Ah yes, but;
No matter how great the intentions...one must occasionally
look at the results 
-T.O

Yes, all those evil causes championed by liberals over the years (with the aid of some conservatives, to be fair, although all those men would be run out of the current Republican party as treasonous RINOs) to improve the environment, public health, wildlife protection, worker safety, consumer safety (thank christ the great Teddy Roosevelt founded what became the FDA - no better day than today to show their necessity, flawed and all as they are), civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, healthcare, capital punishment abolition and on and on have really affected the country for the worse! Oh for the days of burning rivers and acid rain and Bull Connor! Of course that is not to say that all attempts to fix all these things have worked as hoped, but at least liberals are trying to address those issues, not trying to leave everything and everyone at the mercy of the blessed free market, as conservatives apparently want to do (except for the government programs they like of course... better keep those filthy, commie government paws off their medicare and social security and keep those faggots from hitching up together!).

[Tyrones own]

"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.

Let me put it this way;
"If at 20 you're not a liberal, you don't have a heart
If at 40 you still a liberal, you don't have a brain"
It's the thinking with the bleeding heart that has us in
the hole we're in...time to start using the head and being
realistic.
Enough of this heart horse shite, people are sick of it!

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

John F Kennedy[/b]

Ah yes, but;
No matter how great the intentions...one must occasionally
look at the results 
-T.O

Yes, all those evil causes championed by liberals over the years (with the aid of some conservatives, to be fair, although all those men would be run out of the current Republican party as treasonous RINOs) to improve the environment, public health, wildlife protection, worker safety, consumer safety (thank christ the great Teddy Roosevelt founded what became the FDA - no better day than today to show their necessity, flawed and all as they are), civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, healthcare, capital punishment abolition and on and on have really affected the country for the worse! Oh for the days of burning rivers and acid rain and Bull Connor! Of course that is not to say that all attempts to fix all these things have worked as hoped, but at least liberals are trying to address those issues, not trying to leave everything and everyone at the mercy of the blessed free market, as conservatives apparently want to do (except for the government programs they like of course... better keep those filthy, commie government paws off their medicare and social security and keep those faggots from hitching up together!).

To use the term over reaching here might just come up a bit short....the sensationalized, exaggerated opinion here is simply akin to repositioning the deck chairs on the Titanic as she's going down. Right out of the gate this buffoon tried to champion every single progressive utopian cause including ramming his unconstitutional health care monstrosity down our throats without anyone knowing what was in it and all while the house was burning down around us.
As Joe Biden himself said a couple of years ago with the first of their failed jobs bills... It's all about a three letter word: J.O.B.S"

Ask those on the unemployment lines how Obummer's utopian pipe dream is working for them!
He's a one termer... stop the bleeding, it's time to face it lads!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/joe-biden-own-economy-problems-not-bush-203337507.html

[Tyrones own]

You see this is what having to pass monstrous Trillion dollar bills ("to see what is in it" as Pelosi remarked)
will do for you

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/30/bending-obamacares-honesty-curve-downward/

[screenexile]

Blah blah blah you hate Obama this is not new. . . who is your alternative? Who do the public think will turn this around?

You all had your chance to pick the right man for the job and Obama was it. Now he isn't who is the next "hope" who you will vote into office and then slag off for the next 4 years??

It looks very much like Obama's election to lose. It looks very much like "Better the Devil you know"

[Tyrones own]

Blah blah blah you hate Obama this is not new

Yes, for his reckless inept policies that are driving us further into the ground!

who is your alternative?

Absolutely anybody... He has actually helped Jimmy Carter look like Lincoln at this point, and that took some doing

You all had your chance to pick the right man for the job and Obama was it

Really? .. it's that type of ignorance that makes me question myself for giving dunderheads like you the time of day

It looks very much like Obama's election to lose. It looks very much like "Better the Devil you know"

* see above remark

Now he isn't who is the next "hope" who you will vote into office and then slag off for the next 4 years??

Hope  Eh.. I don't deal in hope... that get's left to the idiot Ideologues around here!

[Tyrones own]

Very quiet here...the pair of ye must be down on Wall st.
And stay of the road lads, cars need to use that bridge

[seafoid]

Ta se lofa . Obama and the Republicans.  Tweedledum and Tweedledee
The 2012 Presidential  election will cost 2 BILLION DOLLARS.

Obama: A disaster for civil liberties

He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties

 

By Jonathan Turley

September 29, 2011

With the 2012 presidential election before us, the country is again caught up in debating national security issues, our ongoing wars and the threat of terrorism. There is one related subject, however, that is rarely mentioned: civil liberties.

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States .

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.

Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government's burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that "the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals' rights and freedoms." Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not "soft" on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.

This calculation may be wrong. Obama may have flown by the fail-safe line, especially when it comes to waterboarding. For many civil libertarians, it will be virtually impossible to vote for someone who has flagrantly ignored the Convention Against Torture or its underlying Nuremberg Principles. As Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. have admitted, waterboarding is clearly torture and has been long defined as such by both international and U.S. courts. It is not only a crime but a war crime. By blocking the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for torture, Obama violated international law and reinforced other countries in refusing investigation of their own alleged war crimes. The administration magnified the damage by blocking efforts of other countries like Spain from investigating our alleged war crimes. In this process, his administration shredded principles on the accountability of government officials and lawyers facilitating war crimes and further destroyed the credibility of the U.S. in objecting to civil liberties abuses abroad.

In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.

Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University .

 

 

Jeffrey Blankfort September 29, 2011 at 6:26 pm

I disagree with Sullivan and think we might try viewing Obama in a different light, including taking a good look into who was behind his introduction to the American elctorate at the 2004 Democratic convention which set the stage for the 2008 presidential campaign.

If one looks at the total Obama package, that is, what he has done in terms of both foreign and domestic policy, his pro-Israel, anti-Muslim stance has a remarkable degree of consistency with the former as does his crackdown on civil liberties domestically. Even without his craven address to the UN, having escalated the US wars in seven predominantly Muslim countries has not endeared him to the populations of those countries (and what better choice for that job than a black man named Barack Hussein Obama?)

I have begun to think that we, along with much of the world, have been snookered by the campaign that has been raised against Obama by the far-right that he is a secret Muslim, and that this campaign has been fed and kept alive to provide Obama with a cover and make it seem that he is a helpless victim that is doing is best under difficult circumstances.
All the while, beginning with the shipment of 55 bunker busters to Israel early in his presidency, he has gone on to provide Israel with more weaponry and closer military to military cooperation than any other president and he has not taken a single serious step to prevent Israel from seizing more Palestinian land and expanding its West Bank settlements.

What we have seen from Washington and Jerusalem may have been a charade designed to make the adherents to both sides believe there was a division when none really existed.

I do not accept as a fact that a veto-proof pro-Israel majority in Congress would have been sufficient to defeat Obama had he chosen to make a speech to the American people, telling the truth about the US-Israel relationship, much as Pres. GHW Bush did 20 years ago this month when also faced with as strong a veto-proof majority in both houses supporting Israel's demand for $10 billion in loan guarantees, he stepped before the microphones and squashed it in its tracks. I mentioned this in a post the other day, along with the fact that the polls showed the American public backed Bush Sr. up overwhelmingly.

This history is not unfamiliar, I suspect, to Obama and it should raise new, serious questions about his background and backers that are far more serious than questions about his birthplace.

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192514364490977.html

  Is the world too big to fail?



Noam Chomsky explains how the global order of power has been created and describes the mechanisms behind its continuity

[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.

Let me put it this way;
"If at 20 you're not a liberal, you don't have a heart
If at 40 you still a liberal, you don't have a brain"
It's the thinking with the bleeding heart that has us in
the hole we're in...time to start using the head and being
realistic.
Enough of this heart horse shite, people are sick of it!

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

John F Kennedy[/b]

Ah yes, but;
No matter how great the intentions...one must occasionally
look at the results 
-T.O

Yes, all those evil causes championed by liberals over the years (with the aid of some conservatives, to be fair, although all those men would be run out of the current Republican party as treasonous RINOs) to improve the environment, public health, wildlife protection, worker safety, consumer safety (thank christ the great Teddy Roosevelt founded what became the FDA - no better day than today to show their necessity, flawed and all as they are), civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, healthcare, capital punishment abolition and on and on have really affected the country for the worse! Oh for the days of burning rivers and acid rain and Bull Connor! Of course that is not to say that all attempts to fix all these things have worked as hoped, but at least liberals are trying to address those issues, not trying to leave everything and everyone at the mercy of the blessed free market, as conservatives apparently want to do (except for the government programs they like of course... better keep those filthy, commie government paws off their medicare and social security and keep those faggots from hitching up together!).

To use the term over reaching here might just come up a bit short....the sensationalized, exaggerated opinion here is simply akin to repositioning the deck chairs on the Titanic as she's going down. Right out of the gate this buffoon tried to champion every single progressive utopian cause including ramming his unconstitutional health care monstrosity down our throats without anyone knowing what was in it and all while the house was burning down around us.
As Joe Biden himself said a couple of years ago with the first of their failed jobs bills... It's all about a three letter word: J.O.B.S"

Ask those on the unemployment lines how Obummer's utopian pipe dream is working for them!
He's a one termer... stop the bleeding, it's time to face it lads!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/joe-biden-own-economy-problems-not-bush-203337507.html

The sheer hypocrisy (or perhaps its simply a lack of self awareness) of someone like you labeling someone else's opinion as overreaching, sensationalized and exagerrated is simply breathtaking.

My point stands. There are plenty of issues such as those I listed, in response to your lazy, simplistic, outdated Churchill quote, where what is, in US politics, the liberal position, is the only worthy one. That has nothing to do with Obama's performance or the performance of either party or the awful range of candidates the Republicans are putting up.

And yes, Biden is correct.

[Tyrones own]

My point stands. There are plenty of issues such as those I listed, in response to your lazy, simplistic, outdated Churchill quote, where what is, in US politics, the liberal position, is the only worthy one. That has nothing to do with Obama's performance or the performance of either party or the awful range of candidates the Republicans are putting up.

Wha... He has championed the progressive Liberal utopia like no other that ever came before him, wise up... It has everything to do with him!

And yes, Biden is correct.

See... it's really not that difficult to break down and call a spade a spade, you're now two for two... we're beginning to get somewhere here

[Eamonnca1]

He has championed the progressive Liberal utopia like no other that ever came before him,

So returning taxes to Reagan-era levels is the "progressive liberal utopia"?

[Tyrones own]

He has championed the progressive Liberal utopia like no other that ever came before him,

So returning taxes to Reagan-era levels is the "progressive liberal utopia"?

Yes by being dragged kicking and screaming...

[Tyrones own]

Come Clean and Cut Funding
What did the President know and when did he know it, goes the old Washington adage. Thus did the American people learn yesterday in separate but equally startling revelations that the Obama Administration knew more about two scandals than it has been revealing. The first is regarding the Operation Fast and Furious gun running disaster and the second is the now-bankrupt, Obama-backed Solyndra solar power company. Both instances provoke serious questions for the White House and demand long-overdue action. In the case of the Solyndra scandal, it is clear that Congress must shut off funding for the President's green energy programs. Not only is President Obama unapologetic about the wasted funds, but his Energy Department seems intent on doubling down with other solar bets--and with the American people's money. In the case of Fast and Furious, Department of Justice (DOJ) memos obtained by CBS News show that Attorney General Eric Holder was aware of a controversial cross-border law enforcement operation in July 2010 --nearly a year earlier than he had previously acknowledged under oath in testimony to Congress. The program, which was overseen by the DOJ, launched an effort to sell weapons to small-time gun buyers in the hopes of tracing them to major weapons traffickers along the southwestern border and into Mexico. Of the 2,000 weapons sold, roughly 1,500 remain unaccounted for, and the weapons have been connected to at least 11 violent crimes in the United States, including the killing of a border patrol agent. Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2011, Holder said that he had "probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." CBS News notes that the pair of memos "directly contradicts [Holder's] statement to Congress." Heritage's Lachlan Markay reports: On July 9, 2010, Michael Walther, director of DOJ's National Drug Intelligence Center, briefed Holder on Fast and Furious, which he mentioned by name, according to one of the memos. The operation "involves a Phoenix-based firearms trafficking ring," Walther wrote, and an unidentified number of "straw purchasers," who "are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican trafficking cartels." Four months later Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who heads DOJ's criminal division, informed Holder of eight arrests relating to Fast and Furious, which he also referred to by name. "The Justice Department told CBS News that the officials in those emails were talking about a different case started before Eric Holder became Attorney General," the network reported. "And CBS News reported that Holder misunderstood that question from the committee --he did know about Fast and Furious --just not the details." Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky says, "This raises serious questions about Holder's credibility and whether or not he provided accurate information to Congress." Then there's the case of Solyndra, the company that received a $535 million government-backed loan to produce solar panels, then went bankrupt. President Obama visited the company in May 2010 and hailed it as "a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism," using it as a showpiece of his "green" jobs initiative. Since the company's bankruptcy in September, questions have been raised about the propriety of the loan and the process by which the Obama Administration is picking winners and losers in the marketplace. In a new development, e-mails released Monday show that President Obama received advanced warning about the company's financial condition and pleas that he reconsider visiting the company in order to avoid political embarrassment. The Washington Post reports on the exchange: "A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra," California investor and Obama fundraiser Steve Westly wrote to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett in May 2010. "Many of us believe the company's cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term. . . I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press." Yet despite the warnings about the company's financial condition, the Obama Administration went ahead with the loan, putting 535 million taxpayer dollars at risk on a venture that had red flags all over it. Remarkably, in an interview yesterday with ABC News, President Obama defended his Administration's backing of Solyndra, saying "hindsight is always 20-20" and that Solyndra "went through the regular review process and people felt like this was a good bet." This, though, was not even a question of hindsight, but of sheer stubbornness in the face of contrary evidence. As the e-mails reveal, the White House had the benefit of foresight--advance warning that the company was on shaky ground. But the e-mails weren't even the only warnings. The Wall Street Journal reports that "by late 2010, Solyndra ran into such severe cash problems that it violated terms of its loan, and the government restructured its agreement in a way that allowed private investors, who agreed to provide a $75 million loan, to be paid ahead of the U.S. if the firm was liquidated." Yet despite all this, the President went ahead and put taxpayer dollars on the line. Both Operation Fast and Furious and the Solyndra investment raise serious questions about the Obama Administration. In the case of Fast and Furious, it is now clear that Attorney General Holder and the DOJ have not been forthright with the American people. It's time they give the country a full accounting of the operation, its knowledge of it, and why they have not been forthcoming. As for Solyndra and the President's green jobs gambit, there is certain clarity that the Administration's strategy of backing companies that can't stand on their own two feet is a failure. Congress should cut off funding for the President's green energy programs, regardless of whether the President wishes to see the writing on the wall.