Pro Tip: Asking a girl if she wants to see your Elder Sign doesn't get you very far.  Well, doesn't get me very far.

 

Give me ten million, I'll recommend bringing up Wright, the birther issue and the fact his middle name is HUSSEIN.

 

Hell if they're splashing money around on useless repetitive bullshit, I'll have some.

I don't care if came from the heart or if it was cynical triangulation to open the gay campaign donors' wallets back up. After a lifetime of hearing people compare me to the worst kind of criminals to my face because I'm butch enough to pass for straight, I don't care what Obama's motivations were.

The President of the United States of America said that he thinks I'm an American. And he wants the whole world to know that he thinks that.

Of course it's progress.

My parents and I are talking politics the other day, and I told them that I was voting Obama this fall. My parents questioned why (both are former military and lifelong government employees, so they lean right). I told them it was all about the gays. The Christian right is too loud in the Republicans, and the Republican nominee will fold to them. The last thing I want is the religious making decisions on social policy. I don't think the government should be making social policy at all, as the government has few jobs other than protecting my ass from foreign nations, criminal elements, and my own government. Anyone using a religious document to legislate needs to never be heard in government.

 

I still don't like Romney and probably would never vote for him, but I will loudly refuse to vote for a man who denies marriage to my cousins and their nephews. Short and simple.

 

Yeah, as others mentioned there's probably plenty of latent homophobia in his base, never mind the rest of the country.  It's a daring move no matter when he does it.  For a long time the democrats seem to have been trying to be 'the Right, but nicer (please vote for us!)'.  A lot of the stuff Obama has been doing lately, from talk on Detroit workers to this, is a very loud declaration that "We are not those people. And we don't want to be those people!".

From all the way over here at least it looks bloody fantastic.

So... I saw this on Facebook, from the President's facebook feed with the phrase below it. His marketing people are fantastic. A Friday Night Lights shoutout...

 

 

Clear Eyes, Full Heart

 

Even if Battleship sucked, can we forgive Peter Berg because he came up with that phrase? :D

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has issued a public apology and backed off from his threats to try to have President Obama's name removed from voting ballots this fall after he requested the birth certificate we've all already seen from the state of Hawaii and they gave him a copy. Bennett is pulling double duty as Arizona co-chair for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Bennett was not the one who sent county Sheriff Joe Arapaio to Hawaii to retrieve exactly the same information; that appears to be a county-level initiative.

Next up: Sheriff Joe travels to Bali to investigate "suspicious documents" that are stored in the Hyatt Resort & Spa!

 I believe in ghosts, The Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. That said even I  think birthers are sad people who believe in a easily disproved lie.

:)

 

 

don't get me wrong, I really dug "In Search Of" when I was growing up but, looking back now.....god damn, what a bunch of.....

 

In Search Of is a Ken Burns documentary compared to Ancient Aliens.

 

Back to the point of this thread: Obama 2012!

This just in from the Wall Street Journal: Obama is crazy fiscal.

 

Thanks for that, Art. Bookmarked for what will no doubt be constant email replies to my wingnut friends and relatives.

Media Matters has a link to the above as well as a good deal more info regarding the huge amount of blatant mis/disinformation being put forward by the GOP.

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/201205240001

 

It's been said before by myself and many others....the Republican bullshit is going to reach galactic proportions in the coming months...buy a couple extra shovels.

 

on that note....

 

This Romney commercial verges on parody. Who the fuck buys into this pandering claptrap? (rhetorical question...I know who.)

 

 

Bill Maher questions how many wives Romney has.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-maher-takes-shot-birthers-parody-romn

While George Will can be quite the obnoxious bloviator, I thought this was pretty damn amusing....

 

George Will Calls Donald Trump a 'Bloviating Ignoramus'

 

I can only hope Trump responds....

God-Dammit ABC, this is exactly what Trump wants....,for reputable newsmen and news outlets to continue to talk about about him as if his views on politics are even remotely relevant. At what point will the media realize that Donald Trump is nothing more than a modern day P.T. Barnum that deserves about as much attention as that crazy guy that's always yelling at himself on the subway.

Between this and his epic takedown of Newt Gingrich ("a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like"), I'm beginning to think Will is growing tired of the aggressive anti-intellectualism that has dominated his party since William F. Buckley, Jr. passed on. It's funny to watch, whatever the hell he's been doing this year.

 

Maybe, but I feel like Trump is at least serving a purpose right now by being an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. Given the guy's skill at trolling (and the fact that he's apparently been a Democrat voter for much of his life) I can't help but wonder if this is all part of the plan.

 

I feel the same way about ABC, reputable newspeople and the broadcast media in general.  Since corporations swallowed it, it has become a circus.  Trump etc. is what it feeds on.  The only real news happens in a handful of newspapers and syndicates, and a patchwork quilt of non-mainstream news shows.

Fixed!

+1

Wouldn't it be funny if Trump were really on the Dems payroll....LOL

 

While the Trumps of the world spew stupid and ridiculous crap that is often swallowed by the ignorant, it might not be all bad.

By giving them a microphone and allowing them to try and spread their outrageously specious tales, it will only put them in the sunlight and as the famous quote by SCOTUS Judge Louis Brandeis goes...“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

 

I'd like to believe that these absurd political tales don't hold up well when the person is yelling them at the top of their lungs in front of more and more people. Sure, there will always be some believers but I think eventually they become the minority. 

 

With regards to US politics (specifically GOP politics) and the media, I think more and more people are becoming skeptical....they are starting to be able to see through the silliness. 

I think as we move forward, many more are willing to point and say, "you have no proof of your claims, that is one of the stupidest fucking stories I've ever heard and you are fucking nuts"  

Don't get me wrong, I fully realize there is a lot of delusion in this country but the optimist in me would hope that when these "tall tales" become so patently outrageous, enough people will hold their hand up and call "bullshit".

 

But then again, there are master fabricators like Rove out there to weave new fantastical tales for the ignorant masses to lap up...  

God Bless Donald Trump....

 

Trump goes on a crazy rant on MSNBC

 

And the Obama campaign releases this ad just ahead of Romney's fundraiser with Trump....

 

Trump is still on the birther thing?  His meds must be off-kilter.  

 

That reminds me, I want Orly Taitz to be on the GOP ticket so bad, you guys, she's running for senate in California.

 

 

Switched to a different 'Orly Taitz is crazy' video.  Skip to 2:08.

Edited by MrBananaGrabber - 5/29/12 at 1:09pm

I don't share everybody's glee at the Donald Trump stuff  A lot of still people willfully believe the same things Trump does.  They don't care whether it's truthful, it's got enough truthiness for them.  I don't think its a powerful campaign issue.  The Obama campaign has enough lies and distortions to shoot down; this ad seems like a waste of time and energy. 
 

Of course there will always be some crackpots, but the thing is, bringing up the crackpots and saying "Hey folks, this is what Obama's up against" can only help them among anyone who isn't insane. In fact, I bet there are even birthers and other right-wing nuts, people who operate on no logic whatsoever, who are now having second thoughts when they realize they're on Trump's side.

 

Until recently, despising Donald Trump had nothing to do with partisan politics. It was like the national pastime. He's quite possibly the most loathsome human being alive. If you want to make people start to think that maybe the sky is green, the best way to do it is to trick Trump into saying that the sky is blue. Or rather, "The sky is blue, it's really classy, I'm gonna purchase the sky and have all the clouds inlaid with sapphires to maximize their blueness in as classy a way as possible, watch the Apprentice on NBC."

On the one hand, Romney cannot run on his history, which is one of financial cornholery of the worst kind, during a depression. He cannot run on his ideas or his policies; he has none of his own, and what he has borrowed from the GOP stands revealed by history as an unsustainable shell game. Romney has to dazzle people with bullshit, or he has no campaign.

On the other hand, he's campaigning for the votes of people who don't get any of that. It's a chicken or the egg problem, this party that created its own news network to peddle its lies and the untapped audience that it found waiting.

Now, some cheery news: the Ron Paul campaign's dream of a brokered Republican convention is scheduled to die some time tonight, when Mitt Romney will break the 1,144 delegate barrier and become the future nominee in fact rather than merely in expectation. For added comedy, tonight's primary is in Paul's home state of Texas.
Edited by Reasor - 5/29/12 at 4:02pm

And then Paul runs as an Indy.

I find that difficult to imagine. It seems a safe assumption that Paul wants his son to have the option of running for the Presidency without the family having burned bridges with the Republican Party. No, if Ron was going to run as an independent, he would have started doing that a year ago. The Libertarian Party has already gone and picked its nominee without him.

Whether or not Paul condones it publicly, his followers still have the potential to make a lot of noise on the convention floor in Tampa that could make for some entertaining television.  While it in no way threatens Romney's nomination, delegate projections not authored by the Associated Press assign a more charitable volume to Paul due to the fact that many delegates aren't actually determined until state conventions, and the inevitably decently-represented Paul faction will throw a huge wrench in the GOP's desired image of party unity and do Romney no favors in the general.

 

Paul's definitely had an impact, and it's one that may hand the election to Obama as many have predicted, because Paul die-hards don't seem to believe losing to Obama is any worse than losing to Romney.  It'll be interesting to see what'll become of the schism within the GOP - certainly if the party collapses, whatever it gets reinvented as can only be an improvement.

 I just saw on Rachel Maddow that Florida is once again purging the voter roles. This time its non-citizens instead of felons. As of now a vet who fought in The Battle of the Budge can't vote.

Yea its pretty messed up what Scott is doing. Even the Republican appointed guy who created the list being used thought it was way to unreliable and refused to release it. He was subsequently released and now its Voter purge time.

 

Oh, and funnily enough, there is a law in the Voters Act that says that purges of this sort must be done before a 90 day before election mark. The Primary is in August which means its well within the 90 days and illegal.

 

Fun times in Florida...

 

Doesn't matter.  The zombies will overrun the place before November.  

Can we talk about that Obama kill-list business? Because...ick.

An introduction to the the idea of the kill list can be found in this New York Times article. The short version is that as the CIA finds ever more people it wants to see taken out via attacks from unmanned aerial vehicles, this President insists on having the final say on whether the strike is conducted or not.

It turns out that the CIA wants to kill a whole hell of a lot of individuals, with what appears to be very little concern as to whether this will quell insurgencies and terrorist attacks (two separate things that have been increasingly conflated over the years) or instigate more, and what impact all these assassinations have on our own moral credibility when we ask a foreign head of state, such as Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, to stop murdering quite so many families in their homes himself.

From the article:

And now the states want these drone aircraft for their own surveillance and law enforcement apparatus. Interesting times, too be sure, and the thought of the drones coming home and flying overhead gives me goosebumps. What impact the election will have on this, I'm not certain, since neither party is inclined to put the kibosh on a new piece of military and law enforcement infrastructure (or restrict their use in an era of unprovoked state violence against Occupy protestors.)
Edited by Reasor - 5/30/12 at 12:37pm

...and related to the this particular topic.

 

Frontline episode last night 

 

 

I'm getting a definite Mossad/Wrath of God vibe to all this....

 

 

on a related note....I've noticed that the GOP has been pretty much totally silent on this and other military issues. It would seem that they can no longer pimp the mantra of "the Dems are militarily week" and "the GOP will keep you safe from the big bad terrorists" 

That article is just one more proof what a fucking joke the criticisms of the far right are. Obama's not a raging lefty, by any means, but a clear-eyed pragmatist with left leanings. I happen to think the article provides meat for a good number of valid criticisms of the president (not the least of which is his in-office reversal of the transparency and powering down of the executive branch he campaigned on), but it also seems very clear that painting him as soft on terrorism or not caring about defense is pure and utter horseshit.

The article is also proof that Obama is a bit more comfortable being a war president than we're lead to believe, which again...ick. I mean, the terms to which we're raining down hellfire missiles on people are as broad as seeing them "hanging out" with known terrorists, the assumption that if they're doing that, then they're "up to no good." Never mind the collateral damage that gets in the way in all that, which is frankly disgusting. Obama was elected on a platform promoting discussion first. I'm not suggesting he should reach out to known terrorists and try to bring them to the table, but killing terrorists is not most effective way to put an end to terrorism; it's a more heads you chop off the more will sprout kind of situation. I'm a little disturbed about how willingly he throws constitutional justice out the window, whether it applies to our rights as citizens, or engaging in "enemies" abroad.

 

EDIT: This blog post says it best, I think:

The notion that human rights and liberty are fundamentally and eternally at odds with our national security is a fallacy of thought that simultaneously violates civil liberties and creates poorly-constructed policy. It’s a sign of terrible policymaking when, in order to manufacture some sense of military success, you need to change all the meanings. It’s bad policy to have definitions of ‘militant’ and ‘rendition’ and ‘detention facility’ that change to suit your needs and are overly broad and free of nuance in order to accommodate the ever-expanding scope of your military activities. 

 

I agree with you. Clinton wasn't exactly a peacenik, either. Both seem to have taken a lesson from Carter, who was perceived as a softy and a pushover, and who was one and done. They must figure you can't make an omelet without breaking a few civilians. Clinton was famously, sarcastically described by Michael Moore as the best Republican president we'd had in years. Wonder how the long view will treat Obama.

I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, this sounds an awful lot like LBJ telling the Military exactly which grass huts to bomb in Vietnam. On the other hand, I'm glad the President is overseeing a process that could easily get out of hand. Also, while the killing of civilians (whether they happen to be standing next to a Terrorist or the CIA got it wrong) is terrible, these drone strikes are much, much less destructive than the alternatives (conventional bombs, napalm etc).

 

Agreed about Clinton, but I will say he didn't campaign on peace as hard as Obama did, and he was a little more open about his aggressive, hawkish tendencies. Granted, he didn't have to, but what makes some of Obama's military actions and redefinitions so startling is that they sit in stark contrast with how he campaigned against the Bush legacy. I think it's possible to be a peace-centered Democrat and still be an excellent wartime President without being a complete hawk (or Carter-esque on the other end of the spectrum). But thinking about it, you have to go all the way back to FDR to find an example! (Kennedy comes close, I guess, with the 13 Days stuff, but the Bay of Pigs and the escalation of Vietnam are still on his watch).

Edited by Parker - 5/31/12 at 4:01am

 

This line of reasoning is sickening. How about the USA NOT drop bombs on people, eh? And yet Americans wonder why the states are soo hated when your government indiscriminately kills children, women and whole families in a country you have no business being in.

This doesn't excuse anything or make it the best choice, but I will say I'm impressed that Obama is man enough to say, "If we're going to to do this, it's going to be on me. I'm the CIC, and the decisions should be on me and not cast aside to let blame rest elsewhere." Striking contrast with his predecessor.

 

And I also take heart that, at least so far, of all the things Obama can be validly criticized for, his character doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

Except the next time an innocent person is killed he's not going to hand himself over to an internatinal court to be tried for murder, is he? Nope, he'll be protected just like Bush and everyone else in power. No accountability what so ever and I doubt he has trouble sleeping.  

CTM?

This kill-list business is sickening.  "Hmm...you sure look like you're up to no good.  No more village."  Isn't Obama/our government doing what George Zimmerman did?

 

From the New Yorker write up: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-presidents-kill-list.html

 

 

 

IMO, this whole situation is a HUGE ethical conundrum.

We have gotten to a point where any action ends up being "damned if you do, damned if you don't".  

 

 

playing devil's advocate here.....

 

What should be done with known individuals who support, encourage and carry out terrorism? Should they just be left alone?

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am all too aware of the reprehensible crap that has been perpetrated by the US Gov. over the last century+  and realize that many of these actions/policies are actually the catalyst for the hatred of the US, but I also realize that the world is too complex to be viewed through a black/white, yes/no, right/wrong spectrum.

Can doing something 'wrong' be OK if it's the 'right' thing to do?  

 

Exactly! Anyone who justifies this is a loathesome cunt.

 

Okay, here's what you do. You engage in intelligence gathering and concern yourself of any plot that directly affects the USA. But then this would require the States to stop policing the world and putting billions into the pockets of defence military contractors. Which will never happen. I'm sorry but there is no greay area here. Afghanistan did not attack the USA, nor did Iraq, and the US military should get the fuck out. Hey, how about we investigate the fact that 17 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Oh but we couldn't do that because Saudi's are buddies with the USA and sell them oil.

 

This is all a sick fucking joke.

Except these are not random people, they are people who have committed acts of terrorism against innocents (hell even Al Queda has admitted the USA has framed the issue as the US vs Terrorists, not US vs. Muslims). And yes civilians do get killed in these actions: it's war, not Star Trek where you can set your phasers on stun.

 

And to the extend Americans are hated, it's because we are perceived as #1 in the world: the Big Dog is always resented. And if you want to see real atrocities, visit most of Africa, China, etc.

 

My only point was, these new weapons make it possible to minimize ALL casualties.