Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
blackcoal in case you missed this post
Thank you brother .. but I didn't miss it.
Is this a backtrack/flip flop .. or did the Huffington Post just make this up?
Republicans Flip-Flop on Earmarks Issue
After realizing how difficult it will be to secure funding for projects such as fixing bridges and building water systems, Republicans in the House and Senate are having second thoughts about their votes in support of a blanket ban on earmarks.
Some are trying to redefine the term in order to give themselves wiggle room. GOP Rep. Jack Kingston said "we have gone one step further than we meant to go," while Rep. Michele Bachmann questioned how transportation gets funded without earmarks.
Meanwhile, left-leaning and libertarian commentators are having fun watching Republicans squirm as they "learn what the word ´Ban´ means," as Reason Magazine put it, while Outside the Beltway called the ban "purely symbolic and utterly pointless."
PolitiFact: Rubio, Nelson Flip Flop on Earmarks
PolitiFact: Rubio, Nelson Flip Flop on Earmarks | WUSF Public Media
Hypocrite of the Week: Michele Bachmann, Earmark Flip-Flopper
Bachmann, the founding member of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, protested her own partys push for an earmark ban after realizing she wouldnt be able to bring home government funding for her own pet projects.
Hypocrite of the Week: Michele Bachmann, Earmark Flip-Flopper | DCCC
Here's the problem with Americans and why we don't deserve good government .. WE'RE A NATION OF MORONS.
Both democrats and republicans will see, hear, and speak no evil as long as it's their party doing it.
Both parties lie and play their constituents like a stable of two-dollar whores .. and their constituents keep begging for more.
"Use me daddy"
Do whatever you want to me, this nation, and my family. Lie to my face .. piss on my head and tell me its raining .. I'll believe whatever the fuck you tell me.
American politics in a nutshell.
OK let's put it to a test when funding comes up for a vote lets see how that goes. Until then it's just wait and see wat happens.
I'm forced to agree with CG (even writing that gave me a chill). Alternate cold then heat for serious cramping. Of course it's silly to argue about what the House my do in the next days and weeks. Better we speculate on the consequences if those newly elected members follow through on their campaign promises.
What if they are able to prevent the debt ceiling from being raised? We can use that as a starting point to lower the debt.
What if they are successful in overturning 'Obamacare'? People will scream, people will cheer. And maybe it can be re-done in a fashion that lowers my premium instead of raising it greatly, like what happend this year.
What if they are successful in ending all earmarks? Then we will have politicians that have to be politicians instead of master bribers.
What are the consequences, both intended (and speculate on what might be the unintended consequence) of such actions?
If it works, we all win. If it doesn't, we will need to fix what went wrong before it gets worse.
The big issue is; Can the House alone do that much? It's a single branch.
realistically my hopes are not that high.
Thank you brother .. but I didn't miss it.
Is this a backtrack/flip flop .. or did the Huffington Post just make this up?
Republicans Flip-Flop on Earmarks Issue
After realizing how difficult it will be to secure funding for projects such as fixing bridges and building water systems, Republicans in the House and Senate are having second thoughts about their votes in support of a blanket ban on earmarks.
Some are trying to redefine the term in order to give themselves wiggle room. GOP Rep. Jack Kingston said "we have gone one step further than we meant to go," while Rep. Michele Bachmann questioned how transportation gets funded without earmarks.
Meanwhile, left-leaning and libertarian commentators are having fun watching Republicans squirm as they "learn what the word ´Ban´ means," as Reason Magazine put it, while Outside the Beltway called the ban "purely symbolic and utterly pointless."
PolitiFact: Rubio, Nelson Flip Flop on Earmarks
PolitiFact: Rubio, Nelson Flip Flop on Earmarks | WUSF Public Media
Hypocrite of the Week: Michele Bachmann, Earmark Flip-Flopper
Bachmann, the founding member of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, protested her own partys push for an earmark ban after realizing she wouldnt be able to bring home government funding for her own pet projects.
Hypocrite of the Week: Michele Bachmann, Earmark Flip-Flopper | DCCC
Here's the problem with Americans and why we don't deserve good government .. WE'RE A NATION OF MORONS.
Both democrats and republicans will see, hear, and speak no evil as long as it's their party doing it.
Both parties lie and play their constituents like a stable of two-dollar whores .. and their constituents keep begging for more.
"Use me daddy"
Do whatever you want to me, this nation, and my family. Lie to my face .. piss on my head and tell me its raining .. I'll believe whatever the fuck you tell me.
American politics in a nutshell.
OK let's put it to a test when funding comes up for a vote lets see how that goes. Until then it's just wait and see wat happens.
So when they do what they've said they're going to do and flip flop on earmarks, which they most certainly will .. does that mean I can count on you to jump in this foxhole with me and take them to task for their hypocrisy?
I'm forced to agree with CG (even writing that gave me a chill). Alternate cold then heat for serious cramping. Of course it's silly to argue about what the House my do in the next days and weeks. Better we speculate on the consequences if those newly elected members follow through on their campaign promises.
What if they are able to prevent the debt ceiling from being raised? We can use that as a starting point to lower the debt.
What if they are successful in overturning 'Obamacare'? People will scream, people will cheer. And maybe it can be re-done in a fashion that lowers my premium instead of raising it greatly, like what happend this year.
What if they are successful in ending all earmarks? Then we will have politicians that have to be politicians instead of master bribers.
What are the consequences, both intended (and speculate on what might be the unintended consequence) of such actions?
If it works, we all win. If it doesn't, we will need to fix what went wrong before it gets worse.
The big issue is; Can the House alone do that much? It's a single branch.
realistically my hopes are not that high.
Of course I can't predict the future, but a failure to raise the debt ceiling may create an economic tsunami which is not immediately fixable - even if any congress could act with immediacy.
Blaming the "Obamacare" for a raise in permiums this year is at best disengenuous; the cost of insurance for health care has risen every year for decades and until the 110th Congress no one did anything about it.
Ending earmarks allows the administration to spend the money as they want, it is a check written without a payeee [if I were Obama, not one cent would go to any state I couldn't win in 2012; swing states (Florida, for example) would be flush with federal largesse.]
OK let's put it to a test when funding comes up for a vote lets see how that goes. Until then it's just wait and see wat happens.
So when they do what they've said they're going to do and flip flop on earmarks, which they most certainly will .. does that mean I can count on you to jump in this foxhole with me and take them to task for their hypocrisy?
Have they voted yet on funding? Have they created a budget yet? I have read where certain Congressmen were supposed to have said something when they did not say it. The media reported it like they really said it. Reporting something they are supposed to have said and them actually saying and doing it are two differant matters to address.
So when they do what they've said they're going to do and flip flop on earmarks, which they most certainly will .. does that mean I can count on you to jump in this foxhole with me and take them to task for their hypocrisy?
Have they voted yet on funding? Have they created a budget yet? I have read where certain Congressmen were supposed to have said something when they did not say it. The media reported it like they really said it. Reporting something they are supposed to have said and them actually saying and doing it are two differant matters to address.
How true, which is why we should all watch Fox plus one other news source (so as to always get two stories).
Wow .. yet another rocket scientist here to tell us that Obama is a socialist .. even though he's gone further to the right of George Bush's foreign policy.
Even though Wall Street poured money on him during the campaign .. because Wall Street likes to back socialists
Even though he's given away the bank to Wall Street and the banking industry .. because socialists like bankers
Even though he allowed the health insurance industry to write his health insurers bill .. because socialists are so fond of corporations
Even though he's a warmonger who engages in the same game of war-for-profit that all American presidents do .. because socialists love America's war machine
How would we ever find our way without these rocket scientists?
A. He has not gone to the right of President Bush's foreign policy.
B. Wall Street "poured" money exactly to the extent it found that course to be potentially helpful in preventing President Obama from later "hurting" them. That they would do that even for a guy with socialist inclination makes some sense since he would be perceived as -- in many ways -- a more urgent threat.
C. What does giving away the bank to to Wall Street and the banking industry even mean?
D. The health insurance industry did not write the Obamacare bill. They DID, certainly, have some input into some aspects of it. But so what? The whole tenor and tone of the Obamacare legislation is socialist even if the insurance industry found a lobby-effort way to get something out of it. WE are the ones who are gonna be screwed by it. That's the way it works with socialism.
E. There's nothing substantive behind your sophistry that President Obama is a "war monger." There's even less substance behind your EMPTY claim that it's 'war for profit' that he seeks. Your stale old rhetoric doesn't come close to qualifying as a fact.
But your post is still somewhat helpful: when we go looking for rocket scientists, we know not to include your name on the list of invited applicants.
Not too bright, huh?
A. Why Obama Defaulted to Bush Foreign Policy Positions
Obama's Foreign Policy Similar to Bush's at End of 2009 - TIME
George H.W. Obama?
George H.W. Obama? | Foreign Policy
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach - FoxNews.com
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies - CBS News
Where is he to the right of Bush the unlearned mind asks ..
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles
When it comes to vaporizing Americans with Hellfire missiles, what's the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration? The Bush administration fretted about the legal implications.
If Bush was having Americans killed in Pakistan in 2008, then it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is ordering the CIA to kill American cleric and accused terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010, right? Not reallythe cases are pretty different. From Woodward's account, it seems clear that the Bush administration was sincerely worried about the potential legal ramifications of killing Americans abroad"the CIA would not reveal the particulars [of the attack] due to the implications under American law."
Much has changed since the Bush administration left office. Two years ago, the CIA was worrying about legal issues surrounding the killing of Americans at an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Now the Obama administration has apparently put American citizens on a "targeted killing" list.
The drone strikes described in Woodward's book aren't even the first example of the Bush administration worrying about the propriety of something the Obama administration seems comfortable with. Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen and alleged terrorist, was killed by a missile strike in Yemen in November 2002. At the time, US officials were quick to emphasize to reporters that Derwish was not the target of the attack.
By contrast, the Obama administration makes no bones about targeting Al-Awlaki or other US citizens. Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, admitted that citizens are targeted for killing in a public congressional hearing in January. On Friday, the government responded to a lawsuit intended to obtain an injunction against killing Al-Awlaki without due process. The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, has little chance of success.
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles | Mother Jones
Not too bright are ya'?
B. Too suggest that Wall Street would back a socialist is just straight ignorant. No further comment required.
C. It means the biggest beneficiaries of Obama's two years in office has been Wall Street and the banking industry by far .. and I suggest you go do some research on this first before I make you look stupid and ill-informed again.
D. Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill
Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill | FDL Action
Not only did health insurers write the fucking bill .. guess who Obama picked to administer it?
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
E. War for profit isn't just what Obama seeks .. it's what all US presidents seek. Our military is just glorified security guards for business.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan .. just business.
Perhaps video games might be closer to your level of comprehension.
Aside from the fact that this is nothing but supposition on the part of a biased source...House GOP Backtracking on Promised 'Reforms' Before They Even Get Started
Anyone surprised? Not me.
A. He has not gone to the right of President Bush's foreign policy.
B. Wall Street "poured" money exactly to the extent it found that course to be potentially helpful in preventing President Obama from later "hurting" them. That they would do that even for a guy with socialist inclination makes some sense since he would be perceived as -- in many ways -- a more urgent threat.
C. What does giving away the bank to to Wall Street and the banking industry even mean?
D. The health insurance industry did not write the Obamacare bill. They DID, certainly, have some input into some aspects of it. But so what? The whole tenor and tone of the Obamacare legislation is socialist even if the insurance industry found a lobby-effort way to get something out of it. WE are the ones who are gonna be screwed by it. That's the way it works with socialism.
E. There's nothing substantive behind your sophistry that President Obama is a "war monger." There's even less substance behind your EMPTY claim that it's 'war for profit' that he seeks. Your stale old rhetoric doesn't come close to qualifying as a fact.
But your post is still somewhat helpful: when we go looking for rocket scientists, we know not to include your name on the list of invited applicants.
Not too bright, huh?
A. Why Obama Defaulted to Bush Foreign Policy Positions
Obama's Foreign Policy Similar to Bush's at End of 2009 - TIME
George H.W. Obama?
George H.W. Obama? | Foreign Policy
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach - FoxNews.com
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies - CBS News
Where is he to the right of Bush the unlearned mind asks ..
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles
When it comes to vaporizing Americans with Hellfire missiles, what's the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration? The Bush administration fretted about the legal implications.
If Bush was having Americans killed in Pakistan in 2008, then it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is ordering the CIA to kill American cleric and accused terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010, right? Not reallythe cases are pretty different. From Woodward's account, it seems clear that the Bush administration was sincerely worried about the potential legal ramifications of killing Americans abroad"the CIA would not reveal the particulars [of the attack] due to the implications under American law."
Much has changed since the Bush administration left office. Two years ago, the CIA was worrying about legal issues surrounding the killing of Americans at an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Now the Obama administration has apparently put American citizens on a "targeted killing" list.
The drone strikes described in Woodward's book aren't even the first example of the Bush administration worrying about the propriety of something the Obama administration seems comfortable with. Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen and alleged terrorist, was killed by a missile strike in Yemen in November 2002. At the time, US officials were quick to emphasize to reporters that Derwish was not the target of the attack.
By contrast, the Obama administration makes no bones about targeting Al-Awlaki or other US citizens. Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, admitted that citizens are targeted for killing in a public congressional hearing in January. On Friday, the government responded to a lawsuit intended to obtain an injunction against killing Al-Awlaki without due process. The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, has little chance of success.
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles | Mother Jones
Not too bright are ya'?
B. Too suggest that Wall Street would back a socialist is just straight ignorant. No further comment required.
C. It means the biggest beneficiaries of Obama's two years in office has been Wall Street and the banking industry by far .. and I suggest you go do some research on this first before I make you look stupid and ill-informed again.
D. Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill
Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill | FDL Action
Not only did health insurers write the fucking bill .. guess who Obama picked to administer it?
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
E. War for profit isn't just what Obama seeks .. it's what all US presidents seek. Our military is just glorified security guards for business.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan .. just business.
Perhaps video games might be closer to your level of comprehension.
I'd have to agree that upon reading your posts it does appear that you are not too bright. Easily misled by the stale old rhetoric of your ilk. But no. You don;'t seem very bright at all.
Your latest diatribe is far too verbose to reply to in one sitting, but picking the last topic at random: war for profit. That is a claim easily made. But you support it not at all.
I do not doubt that you believe your own tripe, but lots of college kids get easily excited the first time they realize that motivations are complex. So, it's ok. With any luck maybe someday you too will grow up and smarten up.
I enjoyed the whole leftist canard that the entire war in Iraq was a "war for oil," to follow you mindless meme. Very interesting how the corporate pigs and conspirators got the war fought for that reason but never managed to achieve the original objective. If you were a whole lot smarter, in fact, this might suggest to you that there are some very good reasons to question the validity of your own syllogism.
But you won't.
No. I agree with you; you really aren't too bright. video games are clearly above your level. Start with a few years worth of tic tac toe. You might have a chance.
HuffyPo sycophants belong to the 'Party of No' so who cares what they think? If the GOP follows the 'Pledge to America',they'll be fine. The Senate could be next for them. The 'Pledge to America' is there to be a Road Map. Lets hope the GOP follows that road.
actually, none of those stories backs your actual claim of Obama moving to the right of BushNot too bright, huh?
A. Why Obama Defaulted to Bush Foreign Policy Positions
Obama's Foreign Policy Similar to Bush's at End of 2009 - TIME
George H.W. Obama?
George H.W. Obama? | Foreign Policy
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach - FoxNews.com
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies - CBS News
Where is he to the right of Bush the unlearned mind asks ..
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles
When it comes to vaporizing Americans with Hellfire missiles, what's the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration? The Bush administration fretted about the legal implications.
If Bush was having Americans killed in Pakistan in 2008, then it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is ordering the CIA to kill American cleric and accused terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010, right? Not reallythe cases are pretty different. From Woodward's account, it seems clear that the Bush administration was sincerely worried about the potential legal ramifications of killing Americans abroad"the CIA would not reveal the particulars [of the attack] due to the implications under American law."
Much has changed since the Bush administration left office. Two years ago, the CIA was worrying about legal issues surrounding the killing of Americans at an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Now the Obama administration has apparently put American citizens on a "targeted killing" list.
The drone strikes described in Woodward's book aren't even the first example of the Bush administration worrying about the propriety of something the Obama administration seems comfortable with. Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen and alleged terrorist, was killed by a missile strike in Yemen in November 2002. At the time, US officials were quick to emphasize to reporters that Derwish was not the target of the attack.
By contrast, the Obama administration makes no bones about targeting Al-Awlaki or other US citizens. Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, admitted that citizens are targeted for killing in a public congressional hearing in January. On Friday, the government responded to a lawsuit intended to obtain an injunction against killing Al-Awlaki without due process. The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, has little chance of success.
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles | Mother Jones
Not too bright are ya'?
B. Too suggest that Wall Street would back a socialist is just straight ignorant. No further comment required.
C. It means the biggest beneficiaries of Obama's two years in office has been Wall Street and the banking industry by far .. and I suggest you go do some research on this first before I make you look stupid and ill-informed again.
D. Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill
Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill | FDL Action
Not only did health insurers write the fucking bill .. guess who Obama picked to administer it?
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
E. War for profit isn't just what Obama seeks .. it's what all US presidents seek. Our military is just glorified security guards for business.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan .. just business.
Perhaps video games might be closer to your level of comprehension.
I'd have to agree that upon reading your posts it does appear that you are not too bright. Easily misled by the stale old rhetoric of your ilk. But no. You don;'t seem very bright at all.
Your latest diatribe is far too verbose to reply to in one sitting, but picking the last topic at random: war for profit. That is a claim easily made. But you support it not at all.
I do not doubt that you believe your own tripe, but lots of college kids get easily excited the first time they realize that motivations are complex. So, it's ok. With any luck maybe someday you too will grow up and smarten up.
I enjoyed the whole leftist canard that the entire war in Iraq was a "war for oil," to follow you mindless meme. Very interesting how the corporate pigs and conspirators got the war fought for that reason but never managed to achieve the original objective. If you were a whole lot smarter, in fact, this might suggest to you that there are some very good reasons to question the validity of your own syllogism.
But you won't.
No. I agree with you; you really aren't too bright. video games are clearly above your level. Start with a few years worth of tic tac toe. You might have a chance.
Bawk, bawk, bawk .. run away litttle chicken.
I guess you just didn't have time to get to the EMBARRASSMENT I slapped your dumb ass with.
I think they have a new versiion of Donkey Kong coming out .. you might want to spend more time there.
My question is how in the fuck is it that you didn't know about what I posted until I schooled you? How is that given all this is WIDELY KNOWN.
Bawk, Bawk motherfucker.
At least pick up a newspaper before you claim to be all-knowing. :0)
um, that was the "contract WITH America"HuffyPo sycophants belong to the 'Party of No' so who cares what they think? If the GOP follows the 'Pledge to America',they'll be fine. The Senate could be next for them. The 'Pledge to America' is there to be a Road Map. Lets hope the GOP follows that road.
Is that like the contract on America?
What a rousing success that was, eh?
actually, none of those stories backs your actual claim of Obama moving to the right of BushI'd have to agree that upon reading your posts it does appear that you are not too bright. Easily misled by the stale old rhetoric of your ilk. But no. You don;'t seem very bright at all.
Your latest diatribe is far too verbose to reply to in one sitting, but picking the last topic at random: war for profit. That is a claim easily made. But you support it not at all.
I do not doubt that you believe your own tripe, but lots of college kids get easily excited the first time they realize that motivations are complex. So, it's ok. With any luck maybe someday you too will grow up and smarten up.
I enjoyed the whole leftist canard that the entire war in Iraq was a "war for oil," to follow you mindless meme. Very interesting how the corporate pigs and conspirators got the war fought for that reason but never managed to achieve the original objective. If you were a whole lot smarter, in fact, this might suggest to you that there are some very good reasons to question the validity of your own syllogism.
But you won't.
No. I agree with you; you really aren't too bright. video games are clearly above your level. Start with a few years worth of tic tac toe. You might have a chance.
Bawk, bawk, bawk .. run away litttle chicken.
I guess you just didn't have time to get to the EMBARRASSMENT I slapped your dumb ass with.
I think they have a new versiion of Donkey Kong coming out .. you might want to spend more time there.
My question is how in the fuck is it that you didn't know about what I posted until I schooled you? How is that given all this is WIDELY KNOWN.
Bawk, Bawk motherfucker.
At least pick up a newspaper before you claim to be all-knowing. :0)
what they DO support is he moved to be the SAME as Bush
YMMV
um, that was the "contract WITH America"HuffyPo sycophants belong to the 'Party of No' so who cares what they think? If the GOP follows the 'Pledge to America',they'll be fine. The Senate could be next for them. The 'Pledge to America' is there to be a Road Map. Lets hope the GOP follows that road.
Is that like the contract on America?
What a rousing success that was, eh?
and you ignore that the dems kept BUsh from doing those thingsactually, none of those stories backs your actual claim of Obama moving to the right of Bush
Bawk, bawk, bawk .. run away litttle chicken.
I guess you just didn't have time to get to the EMBARRASSMENT I slapped your dumb ass with.
I think they have a new versiion of Donkey Kong coming out .. you might want to spend more time there.
My question is how in the fuck is it that you didn't know about what I posted until I schooled you? How is that given all this is WIDELY KNOWN.
Bawk, Bawk motherfucker.
At least pick up a newspaper before you claim to be all-knowing. :0)
what they DO support is he moved to be the SAME as Bush
YMMV
Oh really ..
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles
When it comes to vaporizing Americans with Hellfire missiles, what's the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration? The Bush administration fretted about the legal implications.
If Bush was having Americans killed in Pakistan in 2008, then it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is ordering the CIA to kill American cleric and accused terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010, right? Not reallythe cases are pretty different. From Woodward's account, it seems clear that the Bush administration was sincerely worried about the potential legal ramifications of killing Americans abroad"the CIA would not reveal the particulars [of the attack] due to the implications under American law."
Much has changed since the Bush administration left office. Two years ago, the CIA was worrying about legal issues surrounding the killing of Americans at an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Now the Obama administration has apparently put American citizens on a "targeted killing" list.
The drone strikes described in Woodward's book aren't even the first example of the Bush administration worrying about the propriety of something the Obama administration seems comfortable with. Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen and alleged terrorist, was killed by a missile strike in Yemen in November 2002. At the time, US officials were quick to emphasize to reporters that Derwish was not the target of the attack.
By contrast, the Obama administration makes no bones about targeting Al-Awlaki or other US citizens. Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, admitted that citizens are targeted for killing in a public congressional hearing in January. On Friday, the government responded to a lawsuit intended to obtain an injunction against killing Al-Awlaki without due process. The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, has little chance of success.
Not sure where "right" is to you brother .. but without question, Obama is to the right of Bush on many foreign policy issues, like his stepped up misssle murders of innocent people in Pakistan .. as well as some domestic issues .. like his attacks on civil liberties.
He is Bush Jr. .. but he's gone even further because unlike Bush, he believes he can get away with it without much critcism.
Guess who else believes that Obama has gone further than Bush?
Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown
President Barack Obama has finally received praise for his terror policies . . . from Bush officials. Two of the officials commonly named as responsible for allegedly criminal acts during the Bush Administration, former National Intelligence Director retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnel and former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, are heaping praise on Obama for going even farther than George Bush in his policies. Now, there is an ignoble accomplishment.
McConnell is positively gushing with praise that the new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursing these issues . . . Hayden, who is most often cited for the unlawful surveillance programs under Bush, stated I thank god every day for the continuity shown by Obama in continuing Bushs approach to the law and terror.
President Obama has certainly earned these professional references. He blocked public interest lawsuits in federal court on the unlawful surveillance program while blocking any investigation into torture. Hayden was the direct beneficiary of these policies. It is like Bernie Madoff praising the enforcement policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that allowed him to thrive in the 1990s. When many of us were stating that Haydens surveillance programs were clearly unlawful, Hayden was insisting that his own lawyers at the NSA had reviewed the program and were satisfied that it was lawful. This was the same tactic used by Bush in selecting biased lawyers to give clearly unsound legal analysis to support unlawful programs. Ultimately, when Haydens program was brought into federal court and faced actual judicial review, Hayden opposed such independent and competent review and Obama ultimately stopped it.
Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown JONATHAN TURLEY
only LIBS called it "on"um, that was the "contract WITH America"
Is that like the contract on America?
What a rousing success that was, eh?
Some called it that .. I didn't/don't.
By whatever named it was called, it was a total failure.
Now Newt is back. :0)
Not too bright, huh?
A. Why Obama Defaulted to Bush Foreign Policy Positions
Obama's Foreign Policy Similar to Bush's at End of 2009 - TIME
George H.W. Obama?
George H.W. Obama? | Foreign Policy
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach
First 100 Days: Obama Foreign Policy Takes Pages from Bush Approach - FoxNews.com
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies
Obama's Foreign Policy Is Very Much A Continuation Of The Bush Policies - CBS News
Where is he to the right of Bush the unlearned mind asks ..
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles
When it comes to vaporizing Americans with Hellfire missiles, what's the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration? The Bush administration fretted about the legal implications.
If Bush was having Americans killed in Pakistan in 2008, then it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is ordering the CIA to kill American cleric and accused terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2010, right? Not reallythe cases are pretty different. From Woodward's account, it seems clear that the Bush administration was sincerely worried about the potential legal ramifications of killing Americans abroad"the CIA would not reveal the particulars [of the attack] due to the implications under American law."
Much has changed since the Bush administration left office. Two years ago, the CIA was worrying about legal issues surrounding the killing of Americans at an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Now the Obama administration has apparently put American citizens on a "targeted killing" list.
The drone strikes described in Woodward's book aren't even the first example of the Bush administration worrying about the propriety of something the Obama administration seems comfortable with. Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen and alleged terrorist, was killed by a missile strike in Yemen in November 2002. At the time, US officials were quick to emphasize to reporters that Derwish was not the target of the attack.
By contrast, the Obama administration makes no bones about targeting Al-Awlaki or other US citizens. Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, admitted that citizens are targeted for killing in a public congressional hearing in January. On Friday, the government responded to a lawsuit intended to obtain an injunction against killing Al-Awlaki without due process. The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, has little chance of success.
Obama, Bush, and the Judicious Use of Hellfire Missiles | Mother Jones
Not too bright are ya'?
B. Too suggest that Wall Street would back a socialist is just straight ignorant. No further comment required.
C. It means the biggest beneficiaries of Obama's two years in office has been Wall Street and the banking industry by far .. and I suggest you go do some research on this first before I make you look stupid and ill-informed again.
D. Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill
Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill | FDL Action
Not only did health insurers write the fucking bill .. guess who Obama picked to administer it?
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
Obama Adm. Defends Hiring Of Ex-Health Insurance Exec To Oversee Reform
E. War for profit isn't just what Obama seeks .. it's what all US presidents seek. Our military is just glorified security guards for business.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan .. just business.
Perhaps video games might be closer to your level of comprehension.
I'd have to agree that upon reading your posts it does appear that you are not too bright. Easily misled by the stale old rhetoric of your ilk. But no. You don;'t seem very bright at all.
Your latest diatribe is far too verbose to reply to in one sitting, but picking the last topic at random: war for profit. That is a claim easily made. But you support it not at all.
I do not doubt that you believe your own tripe, but lots of college kids get easily excited the first time they realize that motivations are complex. So, it's ok. With any luck maybe someday you too will grow up and smarten up.
I enjoyed the whole leftist canard that the entire war in Iraq was a "war for oil," to follow you mindless meme. Very interesting how the corporate pigs and conspirators got the war fought for that reason but never managed to achieve the original objective. If you were a whole lot smarter, in fact, this might suggest to you that there are some very good reasons to question the validity of your own syllogism.
But you won't.
No. I agree with you; you really aren't too bright. video games are clearly above your level. Start with a few years worth of tic tac toe. You might have a chance.
Bawk, bawk, bawk .. run away litttle chicken.
I guess you just didn't have time to get to the EMBARRASSMENT I slapped your dumb ass with.
I think they have a new versiion of Donkey Kong coming out .. you might want to spend more time there.
My question is how in the fuck is it that you didn't know about what I posted until I schooled you? How is that given all this is WIDELY KNOWN.
Bawk, Bawk motherfucker.
At least pick up a newspaper before you claim to be all-knowing. :0)
