American politics and news thread 2.0

When others on the board have expressed incredulity that I believe President Obama is overly sympathetic to the Muslim religion, I need only point you to some of his latest remarks at the U.N. that, well, just seem excessively concerned about the beating that Islam's image is taking around the world:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obamas-tragic-pander-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam/

The opinion piece is quite good, but he really nails it here:

Quote :

OBAMA: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see and the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed. Or the Holocaust that is denied.

ROTHMAN: This is not a clear and definitive defense of the principles enshrined in the First Amendment of the American Constitution. This is an equivalency between what Obama views as equally condemnable religious slanders committed by malefactors on all sides.

Not only is it an equivalency, but both he and his administration have dabbled into what is essentially film criticism, calling The Innocence of Muslims trailer "vile", "reprehensible" and "disgusting". But is it free speech?

I remember when Piss Christ became a hot-topic back in the late-80's, and I can assure some of the younger posters that TIME, NEWSWEEK, nor anyone else in the media were wringing their hands over the hurt feelings of Christians who objected to not only seeing a crucifix dumped in a jar of urine and photographed as "art", but that taxpayer money was ultimately used to subsidize the garbage. But how many people were killed because of Piss Christ? Zero. How many have died because of Innocence of Muslims? Hundreds. Who really are the people with anger management and tolerance issues?

Regarding Piss Christ: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/piss-christ-andres-serran_n_1909911.html

Last point: Mark Steyn makes a very humorous point about Obama's administration becoming film critics instead of defenders of the Constitution and of free speech:

Barack and Hillary: At The Movies
Obama and Clinton are currently starring as the Siskel & Ebert of Pakistani TV, giving two thumbs-down to "Innocence Of Muslims" in hopes that it will dissuade local movie-goers from giving two heads-off to consular officials. "The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," says Hillary Clinton. "We absolutely reject its content, and message." "We reject the efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," adds Barack Obama

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-372333-clinton-government.html

I guess the bottom line for me is that the President seems to have misplaced priorities. He feels the need to shoulder the burdens of the Muslim world, but they are not our concern. The American people did not elect President Obama in order to lift the Egyptian people out of massive poverty, or to free Libya from a cruel dictator, or to ensure women have rights in Saudi Arabia. He was elected to defend the country and the Constitution, but he seems to have trouble finding time to do that in between visits to The View and partying with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

ROTHMAN: "This is not a clear and definitive defense of the principles enshrined in the First Amendment of the American Constitution. This is an equivalency between what Obama views as equally condemnable religious slanders committed by malefactors on all sides."
Not only is it an equivalency, but both he and his administration have dabbled into what is essentially film criticism, calling The Innocence of Muslims trailer "vile", "reprehensible" and "disgusting". But is it free speech?

This is exactly the problem with Obama and other utopian-type thinkers. They truly do subscribe to formulating correct thinking, or the fair thinking, as opposed to FREE thinking. As Rothman easily demonstrates Obama is out of step with what the First Amendment rights actually guarantee. Obama makes speeches about what he considers to be bad manifestations of free expression. Well that's nice, but who cares. We can all make that speech, and it will differ wildly from person to person. What counts are our First Amendment Rights... the rights that actually allow each of us to spout our own versions of Obama's speech. But you won't see these statists standing up for First Amendment Rights, because they reserve the right to attach what they consider to be "reasonable" limits and then give them force of law, through nonsense such as "hate speech" legislation etc. But the framers did warn against this. Jefferson notably cautioned that the U.S. Constitution is just words on a piece of paper. He said it wouldn't take much for free citizens to be seduced into surrenduring individual liberties to government, if they thought government might take care of them. Hence the heavy emphasis throughout U.S. history on defence of liberty and harkening back to constitutional principles.

From George Jonas. National Post. "Those who want to limit free speech claim that it's not absolute but this is false. Free speech is absolute; it's just that using words doesn't amount to a pass to break the law. It's no licence to defraud, defame, incite a riot, enter criminal conspiracy, betray an official secret, impersonate an officer, misrepresent a qualification, breach a fiduciary obligation, etc., nor should it be."

HJackson wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

The board, as always, is wide open for free discussion, but sandbox style namecalling and insults have no place as painstakingly explained by admin.

So how about the numerous instances in this thread where you've referred to people you disagree with as pants-wetting diaper-wearers from Pluto (the last part of which has always come off as particularly childlike and, well, just basically strange)?

I much preferred the feel of this place when it was more self-regulating and people were expected to have a thicker skin. I'm not blaming anybody for the change in policy, and I think Laz has been handling his adminship well, but I do have a problem with hypocrisy. You can't have your cake and eat it too, timmer, and if you're going to go around deleting peoples' posts so nobody else can see them on the grounds that they're insulting, you had better clean up your act and stop strutting around this thread like cock of the walk throwing out puerile, blanket insults about anybody who disagrees with you.

Can we please try and avoid deletions in this thread whenever possible? It's important, especially when it comes to judging whether warnings or punishments are warranted. Things have become personal between two people in this thread and it's been going on for ages, to the point where one of those members now sadly seems to have walked. A mod vs member debate becoming heated is never a good thing, and I'd advise any mods caught in such a situation to either continue in an "equal footing" manner or simply walk away from the debate. Mod powers can't be looked on as a tool being used to win political arguments, so if this kind of stuff continues in this thread I'll simply exclude the thread from moderation altogether.

Christ, it's like the first day at nursery.

Lazenby. wrote:

Can we please try and avoid deletions in this thread whenever possible? It's important, especially when it comes to judging whether warnings or punishments are warranted. Things have become personal between two people in this thread and it's been going on for ages, to the point where one of those members now sadly seems to have walked. A mod vs member debate becoming heated is never a good thing, and I'd advise any mods caught in such a situation to either continue in an "equal footing" manner or simply walk away from the debate. Mod powers can't be looked on as a tool being used to win political arguments, so if this kind of stuff continues in this thread I'll simply exclude the thread from moderation altogether.

A simpler answer would be for a moderator to take no action against a member if they themselves are the target of the disputed posts. That way neutrality is maintained and another moderator, or set of moderators, can take the action against the disruptive poster if it is needed.

I heard the audio to this on Neal Boortz's radio show today and thought it was some sort of comedian punking, or doing a "Baba-Booey" on the radio station, but no, it's for real:


Please note, I'm transcribing her word for word:

Obama Supporter: Yes. Everybody in Cleveland low(?) minority got Obama phone. Keep Obama in President, you know? He gave us a phone. He gone do more."

Reporter: How did he give you a phone?

Obama Supporter: You sign up if you're in on food stamps, you on Social Security, you got low-income, you disability."

Her voice sounds like a cat that has swallowed a bird and it's gotten stuck half-way down it's windpipe. Or worse, she sounds like Oscar The Grouch or some sort of puppet off Sesame Street. Was Gonzo on Sesame Street?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm moving. Trying to get out of the country, but may have to move to one of the northern Great Plains states, like North Dakota or Idaho. Gotta get away from parasites like this woman. I urge everyone else who can flee to do so, because with citizens like her, this ship is sinking ever faster.



[/quote]


EDIT: I see it's now up on THE DRUDGE REPORT. This thing is about to go viral. I predict 500,000 views within 24 hours. This woman is about to become famous. Drudge gets several million unique viewers a day.

CJB wrote:

Obama couldn't find time for Netanyahu this week in New York City, as understandably the celebrity President did need to squeeze in time for Wah-Wah and the other notable women of The View. Pinch-hitting I guess for the West though, was our own non-celebrity Canadian PM who has steadily built a rep as one of Israel's staunchest allies against the Iranian threat and general Middle East, anti-Israeli belligerence. PM Harper distinguished himself again, not only meeting with the Israeli PM in NYC, but also firming up Canada's no-bs stance towards the fascist government in Iran. We also, this month closed their embassy and kicked out all their diplomats (spies and bulliers of Iranian ex-pats).

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/26/israels-staunchest-ally-stephen-harper-has-transformed-canadas-mideast-policy

"To many Canadian Jews, Harper is widely admired as the most unequivocally pro-Israel prime minister Canada has ever had, abandoning what his political, media and diplomatic critics describe as Canada’s historically more “nuanced” position in the Mideast as “an honest broker,” working primarily through the United Nations.

On Wednesday, which was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Harper government again bolstered its standing among many Canadian Jews, when Canada’s delegation to the UN walked out of a speech at the General Assembly by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who described Israelis as “uncivilized Zionists.”

That’s just the latest in a long line of moves by the Harper government praised by mainstream Canadian Jewish organizations, as well as the Israeli government, which today appears to consider Canada its strongest international ally and closest friend."

We got your back Israel.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Obama Supporter: Yes. Everybody in Cleveland low(?) minority got Obama phone. Keep Obama in President, you know? He gave us a phone. He gone do more."

Reporter: How did he give you a phone?

Obama Supporter: You sign up if you're in on food stamps, you on Social Security, you got low-income, you disability."

Her voice sounds like a cat that has swallowed a bird and it's gotten stuck half-way down it's windpipe. Or worse, she sounds like Oscar The Grouch or some sort of puppet off Sesame Street. Was Gonzo on Sesame Street?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm moving. Trying to get out of the country, but may have to move to one of the northern Great Plains states, like North Dakota or Idaho. Gotta get away from parasites like this woman. I urge everyone else who can flee to do so, because with citizens like her, this ship is sinking ever faster.

EDIT: I see it's now up on THE DRUDGE REPORT. This thing is about to go viral. I predict 500,000 views within 24 hours. This woman is about to become famous. Drudge gets several million unique viewers a day.[/quote]

She just provided more evidence for my belief that Milton Friedman's work should be taught in the public schools:

tiffanywint wrote:

Pinch-hitting I guess for the West though, was our own non-celebrity Canadian PM who has steadily built a rep as one of Israel's staunchest allies against the Iranian threat and general Middle East, anti-Israeli belligerence. PM Harper distinguished himself again, not only meeting with the Israeli PM in NYC, but also firming up Canada's no-bs stance towards the fascist government in Iran. We also, this month closed their embassy and kicked out all their diplomats (spies and bulliers of Iranian ex-pats).

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/26/israels-staunchest-ally-stephen-harper-has-transformed-canadas-mideast-policy

"To many Canadian Jews, Harper is widely admired as the most unequivocally pro-Israel prime minister Canada has ever had, abandoning what his political, media and diplomatic critics describe as Canada’s historically more “nuanced” position in the Mideast as “an honest broker,” working primarily through the United Nations.

On Wednesday, which was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Harper government again bolstered its standing among many Canadian Jews, when Canada’s delegation to the UN walked out of a speech at the General Assembly by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who described Israelis as “uncivilized Zionists.”

That’s just the latest in a long line of moves by the Harper government praised by mainstream Canadian Jewish organizations, as well as the Israeli government, which today appears to consider Canada its strongest international ally and closest friend."

We got your back Israel.

Good for Canada. I'd be happy to trade you and your fellow countrymen Harper for Obama, timmer. ;)

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

She just provided more evidence for my belief that Milton Friedman's work should be taught in the public schools:

Amen.

We just have to teach the politicans first.

Gravity's video perfectly encapsulates the United States' downward spiral. The country is trillions of dollars in debt so you vote for the guy who'll give you more free shit. :|

CJB wrote:

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

She just provided more evidence for my belief that Milton Friedman's work should be taught in the public schools:

Amen.

To which I'd add Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, John B. Byles, Henry Clay, Webster G. Tarpley and Henry Carey, all who which had a far more thorough understanding of history than Mr. Friedman and the others (Hayek,.Mises, Hazlitt).

Before you ask, yes, I've had a Road to Damascus moment.

Python nice try Funny video and very appropos considering the celebrity status and Hollywood love the President generates, but his infamous "you didn't built that" speech, as much as liberals would like to pretend that it was taken out of context, simply wasn't. The context was crystal. The man was de-emphasing the importance of private business initiative and shifting attention towards the infrastructure and other constructs paid for by government ie taxpayers. It's all on the record. Critics were happy to play the whole thing unedited. It speaks for itself. It was political sleight of hand aimed at reassuring his base of the importance of big government. ie business couldn't flourish without government building them roads etc to move their goods. It's the most bizarre utterance to ever come out of his mouth. It was pure gibberish, that only the most gullible would attach any importance to. Maybe those that like free cellphones, might have an ah-hah moment. His declaration,(I don't think it even qualifies as an argument) is easily deconstructed and has been. It's child's play.

What drives a vibrant market economy as opposed to a collectivist system is not a mystery. It requires business enterprises, both large and small, bringing products to market (building), both goods and services, that people both want and need. This economic activity, this bartering of goods and services, is what builds the wealth that finances the government apparatus and infrastructure which is designed to facilitate the broader economic and social system.

If I decide tomorrow that I am going to build a business, and am willing to put the work in, and if and when that business takes off and I'm grossing 6-7 figures in sales, I know that I built that business, as any business-person knows, including the cliche of the little girl running her lemonade stand at a profit. There is no doubt as to who built that business, yet Obama is trying to create this fantasy that the diligent businessperson actually was reliant on others, government in particular. That he couldn't have done it without help. It's a red herring.

Obama is sensitive to attacks that he is a champion of big government (if the shoe fits) This was his lame rebuttal. Hardly what we need when the government is running multi-trillion dollar debts. Obama is de-emphasizing the importance of private enterprise and initiative and placing emphasis on the role of government. Obama would benefit from reading up on Friedman, but he's not likely to.But we can read his own books to gain insight into the man. The books he wrote or dictated. Dreams From My Father in particular. He has spent his life seeking out the advice of marxists and other colllectivist thinkers. This is how the guy is wired. His "you didn't build that" speech should come as no surprise. The guy is about big government.

Honestly, I only posted that because I thought the video was amusing.

Python wrote:

Honestly, I only posted that because I thought the video was amusing.

Actually I realize that. I know you like to post funny stuff and the vid is funny. I mentioned that, but those that made the video are also clearly trying to make the point,or at least plant the seed, that his remarks were taken out of context.

Just as Jon Stewart can be real funny, but he's almost always trying to say something too.

I hesitated to criticize the Obama administration over the deaths of the four American personnel over in Libya because it's just so easy to do. Democrats did it to Bush during his 8 years and I rolled my eyes at it every time they did it. Constantly politicizing war and the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan... thank God no American soldiers are being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore (at least that's what I assume from watching CBS, ABC and NBC, but maybe I just missed their reports). But anyway....

The media have been very reluctant to discuss the ambush of the Libyan embassy, and when they have talked about it they've constantly tried to tie in that obscure movie, Innocence of the Muslims, into the attacks. Very few, if any, that I have seen have commented upon some reports that Ambassador Stevens was missing for three hours before his body turned up in the Libyan hospital and that he was apparently raped and sodomized before being killed. I assumed that the administration did not want to divulge details of a sexual assault since, in this case, the victim is also dead, but I'm reading other reports that state that Ambassador Stevens was gay. It would seem to me that his attackers knew this and that is why they sexually assaulted him, as it does not appear the other three victims were sexually assaulted.

Even if he were not gay, the administration has done its best to keep the media from reporting that he was raped. They appear to be making every effort to avoid stereotyping the Muslim religion as intolerant and savage, but does his death not demand that the truth about the attack truly be told? Or is the administration going to sacrifice their friend twice by trying to pin the blame for his death on some 10th-rate YouTube video? The man was stripped of his clothes, raped, beaten, and suffocated to death and dragged through the streets like a sack of garbage and the Obama administration's response is to claim this was a response to a YouTube video that only had seven hits prior to this attack? Give me a f***ing break.

The rape of Ambassador Stevens has all the marks of a "hate crime", so why is no one in the media or administration discussing that? Where is the outrage from the American people? One of their ambassadors was raped and murdered and there's almost no discussion about this event beyond that crudely made fan-video. Talk about a disconnect.

Romney spanked Obama in the debate.

I enjoyed the debate. I watched it via YouTube, actually.

I don't understand why Romney emphasized cutting funding to PBS, however. Just cutting away the small shit isn't going to do anything for us.

CJB wrote:

Romney spanked Obama in the debate.

I woke up at 2:00 am and watched a few minutes of it. It was being replayed. I noticed that President Obama was looking down at the podium and seemed not interested in engaging Governor Romney in the debate. I wiped the sleep from my eyes and assumed that I was reading too much into it and checked the Internet to see how the debate went; Wow! Even among the liberals there was widespread disbelief at how bad Obama was. I thought I was just imagining it at first. In any event, don't expect Obama to be that bad again at the 2nd and 3rd debates. I do expect Congressman Ryan to mop the floor with Vice-President Biden, though.

Incidentally, on MSNBC's Martin Bashir show, they had a graphic at the bottom of the screen with Romney and Obama against an ice-blue background, and in red font it said: FIGHT ANOTHER DAY. I guess Romney was Bond and Obama was Jinx.

And people around here say Die Another Day isn't a memorable, classic Bond film.

Here's another use of Die Another Day earlier in the week after the Atlanta Falcons came back to beat the Carolina Panthers:

[img][/img]

Just when I think my own country is being run by a bunch of morons, I look across the Pacific for reassurance that it could be worse.

And while I still think my country is being run by a bunch of morons, at least I have somthing to laugh about:

Quote :

Arkansas Republican endorses death penalty for children

By Stephen C. Webster - Monday, October 8, 2012 16:42 EDT

A man running as a Republican for State Representative in Arkansas published a book in which he endorses the death penalty for rebellious children and much, much more.

In his book “God’s Law: The Only Political Solution,” published in April, former Arkansas Department of Human Services attorney Charlie Fuqua explains that he supports killing wayward kids because that’s what a Bronze Age tribe did in his favorite religious text.

“The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline,” he wrote, according to an excerpt published by The Arkansas Times. “Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.”

He goes on to write: “Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.”

Fuqua’s run is being bankrolled by established Republicans in the state, including the party itself and the House Republican Leadership PAC. Spokeswoman Katherine Vasilos told Raw Story in an email that the Republican Party of Arkansas had no plans to make financial contributions to Fuqua in the future.

In his book, Fuquoa also expresses his opposition to paying minimum wage, funding public education and what he calls the “Muslim problem,” which he believes could be dealt with by expelling all the Muslims from America. He adds that prisoners who cannot be rehabilitated within two years should just be executed to save money.

And in a diatribe published to his campaign website, Fuqua explains that liberals and Muslims have formed a “strange alliance” around their links to the “antichrist,” because, as he explains, “they both deny that Jesus is God in the flesh of man, and the savior of mankind. They both also hold that their cause should take over the entire world through violent, bloody, revolution. Both want to end freedom of speech so that their doctrine cannot be criticized. Neither can survive in a free marketplace of ideas.”

He’s running against incumbent State Rep. James McLean (D), a conservative Democrat with an A- rating from the National Rifle Association.

Source:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/08/arkansas-republican-endorses-death-penalty-for-children/

What fucking idiot.

Yes, what the world really needs is a generation of sociopaths raised on the constant fear of dying at the hands of their parents. :)

I find it hilarious that he rigidly interprets the Bible and then wants to kick all Muslims out of the country, given that the most extreme interpretations of Islam call for sharia law, whereby the Qu'ran is used as the basis of all criminal and civil law. Which is exactly what Fuqua wants to do with the Bible.

Fact check - Romney, Obama deficit reduction plans:
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/10/17/n-deficit-reduction-fact-check.cnnmoney/