"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Human Snorenado]

Politico is like America's Concern Troll, they fucking suck.

[Stoney Mason]

And yet people still think he (and his fucktard daughter) is a legitimate bastion of foreign policy knowledge/advice

The only people who think that are the 33% that cheerleaded Bush no matter how shitty he was. 

[Phoenix Dark]

And yet people still think he (and his fucktard daughter) is a legitimate bastion of foreign policy knowledge/advice

The only people who think that are the 33% that cheerleaded Bush no matter how shitty he was. 

And the rest of the GOP who are willing to cater to them. Not a good mix, especially after democrats fuck things up enough to lose in 2010.

Cheney is the Matt Millen of foreign policy

[Van Cruncheon]

OBUSHMA

[Human Snorenado]

Honestly, the Afghan/Iraq stuff doesn't bother me 1/10th as much as tossing the economy to the Rubinites to be raped some more.

[Human Snorenado]

In fact, I'd be willing to invade Iran or North Korea if he would publicly kill every Goldman Sachs executive.

[Phoenix Dark]

He's doing what he said he'd do
[youtube=560,345]m_N1OjGhIFc[/youtube]

[Brehvolution]

If 30k now equals an exit by 2011, I think it's worth it.

[Phoenix Dark]

If 30k now equals an exit by 2011, I think it's worth it.

Agreed but at the same time...I really doubt we'll be out in 2011.

Too bad we can't just send some commandos into Pakistan, steal their nuclear weapons/kidnap their scientists/destroy their research, then call it a day

[Human Snorenado]

Yeah, this really kind of weirdly reinforces a point that some of my more apathetic/casually Republican friends keep making- you can't trust the Govt. to do what you want, so you might as well try to put in charge people who will try to do very little.  Of course they don't realize that in the guise of "not governing" the Republicans are busy selling off everything and spending just as much as Democrats, but oh well.

The whole thing makes me even more cynical towards the process.

[Van Cruncheon]

when the government does less, the corporations do more

and we saw how well THEY ruled the last couple decades with the leashes off, eh

mmm, massive consolidation of wealth among the extreme elite

galt's gulch

[Human Snorenado]

when the government does less, the corporations do more

and we saw how well THEY ruled the last couple decades with the leashes off, eh

Which just boggled my mind when the FIRST thing Obama didn't do was nail down the "govt. is necessary to rein in these idiots" meme by going after them hardcore.  Now everything is muddled and even if he did want to (all indications are he doesn't, sadly) the tea baggers would just shout "MOAR SOCIALISM!!!1!!11!"

[Phoenix Dark]

Kinda wondering why people feel let down on Obama's decision when he campaigned on this. That's not to justify his decision one way or another, but this is one of the issues he's actually consistent on.

I'm smh'ing more at the whole let-everyone-push-you-around-ie-banks-wall street-etc-oh-and-lieberman thingie

[Van Cruncheon]

his chicago pals are friends of business if you know what i mean and i think you do

the chicago school is basically the austrian school with less wacky math and more busted kneecaps

[Human Snorenado]

his chicago pals are friends of business if you know what i mean and i think you do

the chicago school is basically the austrian school with less wacky math and more busted kneecaps

Yeah, don't forget where Uncle Milty taught.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Increasing the troops isn't going to do shit.  America and the UN has long since burned through their political capital in the nation.  Foreign nations have a poor track record as a whole of containing Afghanistan sentiment.  30,000 additional troops means a few more victories over the Taliban but that isn't going to unfuck the worthless Karzai administration, the opium trade, or the Taliban's resurgence.

In 2011, we'll pull out as losers but only with more casualties and more debt than if we didn't increase the troops.

[Human Snorenado]

In 2011, we'll pull out as losers but only with more casualties and more debt than if we didn't increase the troops.

Pretty much, but if he didn't do this Very Serious People would be saying that "some are calling the President a cheese eating, wine drinking muslim socialist surrender monkey" on all of the Sunday shows and the dems would probably lose both houses next year.  So I guess it's worth it.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I also think Obama's pledge for more troops in Afghanistan is a failed attempt to be bipartisan again.  The right wing is hoping they can push off health care debates until next year and are using the troop increases to make that happen.  Democrats, sackless as ever, sit back and fret about how they can levy an additional tax on the troop surge, not realizing that the GOP succeeded in their goal of dragging out the health care debates longer, as more Americans get pissed that the opportunity to get easily accessible, affordable health care escapes their grasp.  This also gives the teabaggers a chance to collect themselves and attack again with neurotic Democrats puzzled as to why public support of the public option wanes, without realizing that they let a good opportunity slip through their hands.

Then when vulnerable Democratic seats get sacked next November, the same Democrats will stand around looking confused, wondering why they get railroaded.  

[Phoenix Dark]

I also think Obama's pledge for more troops in Afghanistan is a failed attempt to be bipartisan again.  The right wing is hoping they can push off health care debates until next year and are using the troop increases to make that happen.  Democrats, sackless as ever, sit back and fret about how they can levy an additional tax on the troop surge, not realizing that the GOP succeeded in their goal of dragging out the health care debates longer, as more Americans get pissed that the opportunity to get easily accessible, affordable health care escapes their grasp.  This also gives the teabaggers a chance to collect themselves and attack again with neurotic Democrats puzzled as to why public support of the public option wanes, without realizing that they let a good opportunity slip through their hands.

Then when vulnerable Democratic seats get sacked next November, the same Democrats will stand around looking confused, wondering why they get railroaded.  

That's a pretty ridiculous assertion. I don't think Obama spent three months getting troop death reports, visiting cemeteries, and listening to his commanders only to make his decision based on how to get republicans to like him.

Republicans could delay heath care with the troop increase, like they did with the crime bill during Clinton's health care attempt. Ultimately I think a bill will be done before 2010. It may be compromised to shit but it'll pass; once again less a literal handful of democratic senators will get to overrule the will of the majority of the democratic party and country.

Democrats are going to lose seats in 2010 regardless, it's just a question of how much. Once health care passes and people realize their grandma is still alive they'll chill out; and likewise once grandma realizes her pills are cheaper she'll chill out, and vote for a democrat next time she's given the chance. The economy is going to be the major issue for 2010, and I'm guessing republicans aren't going to be campaigning against HC as much as they're suggesting right now.

[Brehvolution]

It's going to be very interesting to watch republican campaigning on the perceived failures of dems inability to fix the problems republicans caused. 

[Phoenix Dark]

from TPM

Johnnies-Come-Lately

Where have all these war skeptics on CNN right now been for the last eight years?

.

[Oblivion]

Can someone point me to some good pundits/journalists that deal with foreign affairs?

[Mandark]

Can someone point me to some good pundits/journalists that deal with foreign affairs?

You looking to learn about anything in particular?

My best advice is to look for writers who stick to their own specializations rather than people who opine about whatever the current hot topic is.  Some general pundits are good, but most of them are crap, and reading stuff by an actual regional/national expert always gives you a lot more information.

[Oblivion]

Can someone point me to some good pundits/journalists that deal with foreign affairs?

You looking to learn about anything in particular?

My best advice is to look for writers who stick to their own specializations rather than people who opine about whatever the current hot topic is.  Some general pundits are good, but most of them are crap, and reading stuff by an actual regional/national expert always gives you a lot more information.

Specifically looking about stuff on Afghanistan. Preferably from people who have at least some idea of what they're talking about.

[Dickie Dee]

Can someone point me to some good pundits/journalists that deal with foreign affairs?

You looking to learn about anything in particular?

My best advice is to look for writers who stick to their own specializations rather than people who opine about whatever the current hot topic is.  Some general pundits are good, but most of them are crap, and reading stuff by an actual regional/national expert always gives you a lot more information.

Specifically looking about stuff on Afghanistan. Preferably from people who have at least some idea of what they're talking about.

Juan Cole is pretty good.

[Stoney Mason]

Can someone point me to some good pundits/journalists that deal with foreign affairs?

You looking to learn about anything in particular?

My best advice is to look for writers who stick to their own specializations rather than people who opine about whatever the current hot topic is.  Some general pundits are good, but most of them are crap, and reading stuff by an actual regional/national expert always gives you a lot more information.

Specifically looking about stuff on Afghanistan. Preferably from people who have at least some idea of what they're talking about.

Dick Cheney

[Brehvolution]

fegs of NY still can't get married thanks to 38 Republicans and 8 democrats.

[tiesto]

distinguished effete fellows of NY still can't get married thanks to 38 Republicans and 8 democrats.

Just read this, really disappointed in my state.

[The Fake Shemp]

Gay marriage is a pipe dream.

Can someone not explain to me why we cannot abolish marriage, create civil unions to federally protect gay and straight couples, and let folks have a religious ceremony if they so desire?

The technical argument is that marriage is religious in nature, and defined as between a man and a woman.

If so, why can't we take the religion out of it? Everyone gets civil unions, end of story.

[Human Snorenado]

Gay marriage is a pipe dream.

Can someone not explain to me why we cannot abolish marriage, create civil unions to federally protect gay and straight couples, and let folks have a religious ceremony if they so desire?

The technical argument is that marriage is religious in nature, and defined as between a man and a woman.

If so, why can't we take the religion out of it? Everyone gets civil unions, end of story.

Because then you're not just trying to give the homos special rights, you're actually taking rights away from the straights which just isn't allowed.

It's all dumb anyway, in 30 years tops it will be the law of the land even in fucking Wyoming.  Of course by then our kids will all be drinking Brawndo and too stupid to spell marriage.  You had a good run, America.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Hating fags is as American as apple pie.

[brawndolicious]

Well NY is just a few politicians holding it up as those other three states.  California actually had the voters themselves turn it down (with Utah paying to get those votes).  So it probably goes:

NY>CA>UT>>>>TXass

[The Fake Shemp]

Because then you're not just trying to give the homos special rights, you're actually taking rights away from the straights which just isn't allowed.

But you wouldn't be taking away rights from anyone, just separating church and state. If the argument is that giving gays the right to marry somehow perverts the very religious foundation its based on, then I say let's do away with the religious foundation.

That won't stop people from getting married, and whatever religious ceremonies they choose to participate in their private life is their business. It would just mean that on a federal level, all couples are protected - regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

... That said, I think folks would still oppose it, because this isn't about gays ruining the religious definition of marriage, but gay people fucking in our own backyard.

Oh, the humanity.

[Van Cruncheon]

Can someone point me to some good pundits/journalists that deal with foreign affairs?

You looking to learn about anything in particular?

My best advice is to look for writers who stick to their own specializations rather than people who opine about whatever the current hot topic is.  Some general pundits are good, but most of them are crap, and reading stuff by an actual regional/national expert always gives you a lot more information.

Specifically looking about stuff on Afghanistan. Preferably from people who have at least some idea of what they're talking about.

Juan Cole is pretty good.

<3 seymour hersh <3

[The Fake Shemp]

While I agree in principal with the idea that civil unions should be the law, saying that you'd (said to no one in particular) prefer civil unions to government sanctioned marriage is a cop-out.

How so?

I'm pretty far left in my belief that religion should be taken out of the equation with many government services, this is just really an extension of that.

[The Fake Shemp]

I disagree. My personal opinion is that if we do not dump marriage in favor of civil unions, then gays must be allowed to marry and afforded the same rights as any other couple. I'm a realist, and I'd put people's rights over my personal opinion.

I recognize the prospect of the local governments, let alone the federal government, adopting civil unions is slim. That said, I still don't understand why we haven't done so. We wouldn't even be the first country to do so!

I will say that my personal belief is that nobody has put up a compelling argument against civil unions for all couples, simply because that would quickly unravel the primary argument behind the right's argument to not allow gays to marry.

They can't allow the discussion to switch to civil unions, because then the bigotry becomes transparent instead of veiled by religious technicalities.

[Human Snorenado]

Because then you're not just trying to give the homos special rights, you're actually taking rights away from the straights which just isn't allowed.

But you wouldn't be taking away rights from anyone

Good luck convincing the Jesus brigade of that.

just separating church and state.

...and these people want LESS of that, so there you go.

... That said, I think folks would still oppose it, because this isn't about gays ruining the religious definition of marriage, but gay people fucking in our own backyard.

Oh, the humanity.

nail, head, etc

[The Fake Shemp]

Here's my problem with that. If you went up to the American public and told them, "Guess what, everyone is getting civil unions that will afford all the rights that a marriage license used to carry, and will not prohibit you from exchanging vows at a religious ceremony of your choosing!"

... could they really argue they're losing anything?

[The Fake Shemp]

It still seems ridiculous to me. My personal feelings is that the gay community would be better served by pushing for civil unions instead of foolishly trying to fight religious dogma. If the aim is to secure rights, then it is the most logical and rational way. It the goal is to rewrite religion, well, good luck with that.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Separate but equal, eh?

Gay marriage and adoption is legal in my state.  I suspect other states will eventually fall in line as well.  The movement will snowball.  I wouldn't expect ultraconservative states to submit until the end but they will do so as well.

[The Fake Shemp]

Separate but equal, eh?

Huh? Nobody is talking about that.

... Dude, gay marriage got voted down in California and Maine. Yeah, the movement is really snowballing.

[Human Snorenado]

Here's my problem with that. If you went up to the American public and told them, "Guess what, everyone is getting civil unions that will afford all the rights that a marriage license used to carry, and will not prohibit you from exchanging vows at a religious ceremony of your choosing!"

... could they really argue they're losing anything?

Dude, you're expecting the fucking yahoos who were yelling about death panels to take that at face value?  When Sarah Palin is telling them that this is a secret muslim socialist homospiracy to indoctrinate their youth into FEMA camps?  Glenn Beck said so too!

...basically, you're giving the public at large too much credit.  Also, this would never happen since it makes too much sense.

[Human Snorenado]

Separate but equal, eh?

Huh? Nobody is talking about that.

... Dude, gay marriage got voted down in California and Maine. Yeah, the movement is really snowballing.

Yeah, but it lost by a lot more just a couple years ago in California.  It also just BARELY lost in Maine.  Seriously, it IS gaining momentum and in another ten years or so a bunch more states will have gay marriage.  In another 20-25 enough will have it that unless President Palin stacks the Supreme Court any court will rule that it has to be federally recognized, thus legalizing it.  Suck it down, states rights people.

[FlameOfCallandor]

[youtube=560,345]sTbJcixsLq8[/youtube]

[Phoenix Dark]

Where were these concern trolls 9 years ago 

[ToxicAdam]

Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen." The official announcement from this fair Danish city says it all. The former vice president is getting star treatment when he arrives with an entire swarm of green-minded gadflies for the United Nations' global warming extravaganza, which begins on Dec. 7.

"Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference," notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote "Our Choice," his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities.

"Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack."

Wait, what? How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion says it all, too: 5,999 Danish kroners is equivalent to $1,209

.

I'm sorry, Al Gore is my Sarah Palin.

[Stoney Mason]

Where were these concern trolls 9 years ago 

It's Chris Matthews. His entire gimmick is being a concern troll.

As far as the Obama speech I thought it was a good and well reasoned speech for his perspective.

I still disagree with us being there. Or increasing the troop count. But I have trust in him so hopefully if things continue to muddle about he will do the right thing.

[Human Snorenado]

The vibe I get is that basically we're going to try and beat the shit out of them for a year, which when combined with the "hey this is when we're starting to leave" date will convince the Taliban that it's better to just lay low and wait until we leave to start ruining the country again.  That way it's like Iraq all over again- "OMG look at all the progress we made!  Victory!  Time to leave bitches, sorry if it blows up five seconds after we're out!"

[brawndolicious]

But all that infrastructure reconstruction stuff is still going to go on even after the troops leave, right?  I don't really see a point then in leaving and logically, Iraq is a great strategic spot to have a base like Japan/Germany post-WW2.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

 

I'm sure they almost prefer to just take a giant shit on Afghanistan and then leave.  That way they can return and run up some fat debts in ten years when public opinion changes from against nation building to for.  That or general apathy, which could be molded either way.

 

[brawndolicious]

I don't see why public opinion would change if we're still spending the same amount of money in Iraq 10 years from now as we are today (a few billion a week).  Like 80% of that money goes just towards reconstruction so there would be a change if we took out the combat forces but it's still not that big a change as far as economic drain is concerned.  Some people might pull out the whole "save the troops" argument but nobody actually gives a shit (outside of the family of the troops).

I can see some people making a serious argument about the tax burden on Americans to pay for Iraqis being unfair though.  But it's still only going to be a few percent of the GDP to fix a nation we fucked up for no reason.  There was no real ideology being fought against like in Vietnam wrt communism, we just fucked up some random motherfuckers.  It's like running over somebody you accidentally thought was shop-lifting and then having to pay his medical bills.  Just on a slightly larger scale.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/teabagging_is_the_new_nr.php?ref=fpblg

[FlameOfCallandor]

I like how democrats are ulltra concerned about the debt when the war is brought up.

[Human Snorenado]

I like how democrats are ulltra concerned about the debt when the war is brought up.

You know, it's not impossible to be a leftist and not concerned about the debt.  Of course, one way of not running deficits is, you know, COLLECTING ENOUGH TAXES TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU'RE SPENDING.  But heavens forbid we raise taxes.

[Phoenix Dark]

I like how democrats are ulltra concerned about the debt when the war is brought up.

You know, it's not impossible to be a leftist and not concerned about the debt.  Of course, one way of not running deficits is, you know, COLLECTING ENOUGH TAXES TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU'RE SPENDING.  But heavens forbid we raise taxes.

not if we cut taxes as well as spending

[Brehvolution]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/teabagging_is_the_new_nr.php?ref=fpblg

  They don't even get why people call them teabaggers.

[Human Snorenado]

I like how democrats are ulltra concerned about the debt when the war is brought up.

You know, it's not impossible to be a leftist and not concerned about the debt.  Of course, one way of not running deficits is, you know, COLLECTING ENOUGH TAXES TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU'RE SPENDING.  But heavens forbid we raise taxes.

not if we cut taxes as well as spending

Then we pretty much just end up where we are now, except we're spending less so therefore stimulating the economy less, which makes PERFECT SENSE in a horrible recession.

Of course, you can't have any sort of honest discussion about raising taxes in America, even if it's just on the rich or corporations, because we're about six brain cells away from drinking Brawndo and watching Ow My Balls.

[FlameOfCallandor]

To get snow in our typically tropical clime the timing must be just right, with cold air arriving at the same time as atmospheric moisture. It seems plausible this will happen Friday afternoon.
The National Weather Service says much of the area could get from a trace to an inch of snow.
But Houston only sees snow, on average, about every four years. And never this early in the season: Friday's, if it comes, would be the earliest snowfall ever in Houston, beating the record tied last year by six days. So forecasters like Fred Schmude, of ImpactWeather, are wary.

[The Fake Shemp]

Global warming lol am i rite

[Human Snorenado]

Global warming lol am i rite

Yeah, I man it's not like it was in the high 60's in Wilmington today, or unseasonably warm all up and down the east coast or anything.