They told me if I voted for John McCain...

[lil mike]

...we would see constitutional protections eliminated in the name of national security.

And they were right!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218970652119898.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.

The move is one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S. And it potentially opens a new political tussle over national security policy, as the administration marks another step back from pre-election criticism of unorthodox counterterror methods.

[ekg]

this guy is wearing on my, already thin, patience..

I'm tired of his concession,back-pedals,bullshit,compromise by giving up 100% crap..

HRC would have had bigger balls..

[Howey]

this guy is wearing on my, already thin, patience..

I'm tired of his concession,back-pedals,bullshit,compromise by giving up 100% crap..

HRC would have had bigger balls..

I disagree.

[lil mike]

I disagree.

Too which part?  The bigger balls?

[uselesslegs]

Too which part?  The bigger balls?

It's Howey...duh!

[Howey]

You guys are too predictable.

No. Bill, husband of Hill, was a master at compromise. Hillary would be too. My opinion is that Obama, He of the Big Ballz, is doing everything he can to work out a compromise between the children.

[uselesslegs]

You guys are too predictable.

No. Bill, husband of Hill, was a master at compromise. Hillary would be too. My opinion is that Obama, He of the Big Ballz, is doing everything he can to work out a compromise between the children.

Kelly and I have a "theory" about this, but I shall spare the masses.

[Howey]

Kelly and I have a "theory" about this, but I shall spare the masses.

This "mass" wants to know...

[ekg]

You guys are too predictable.

No. Bill, husband of Hill, was a master at compromise. Hillary would be too. My opinion is that Obama, He of the Big Ballz, is doing everything he can to work out a compromise between the children.

Obama has balls on some issues.. the pirate thing, BIG balls... surprisingly Big.. (but HRC would have done the same AND it would n't have been surprising)..

Obama doesn't understand how to 'compromise' he only knows how to give them what they want, then start the dickering process.. that's where I say he has no balls. HRC and/or Bill would have started much lower and worked up to giving them some of what they want, but would have gotten a lot of what BC/HRC wanted in the deal also.

On the GITMO issue.. again, he is in the right.. but he's backing off because he can't play it politically...he could, but he won't even try... would Bill or HRC? I don't know.. I don't know that anyone would ever think she was weak on terrorists so I don't know that it would have been a problem..

the problem with Obama, going all the way back to the public option.. he won't stand up for what he and his party wants.. he did the same with the Bush tax cuts and he'll do the same with the shutdown.. he won't stand up for what he and his party wants.. of course he can't be seen as getting 'angry'.. imagine all the 'angry black man' comments then..  but he can be firm and let us stand with him, instead of letting us stand then selling us down the river in an effort to give the other side another win so he can look like he's compromising..

[Howey]

Obama has balls on some issues.. the pirate thing, BIG balls... surprisingly Big.. (but HRC would have done the same AND it would n't have been surprising)..

Obama doesn't understand how to 'compromise' he only knows how to give them what they want, then start the dickering process.. that's where I say he has no balls. HRC and/or Bill would have started much lower and worked up to giving them some of what they want, but would have gotten a lot of what BC/HRC wanted in the deal also.

On the GITMO issue.. again, he is in the right.. but he's backing off because he can't play it politically...he could, but he won't even try... would Bill or HRC? I don't know.. I don't know that anyone would ever think she was weak on terrorists so I don't know that it would have been a problem..

the problem with Obama, going all the way back to the public option.. he won't stand up for what he and his party wants.. he did the same with the Bush tax cuts and he'll do the same with the shutdown.. he won't stand up for what he and his party wants.. of course he can't be seen as getting 'angry'.. imagine all the 'angry black man' comments then..  but he can be firm and let us stand with him, instead of letting us stand then selling us down the river in an effort to give the other side another win so he can look like he's compromising..

Bill and Hill didn't have to deal with the one thing Obama's dealing with. The Teabaggers and their insanity coupled with the resultant mass hysteria of the entire Republican Party. Back then, in the old days of Newt (as opposed to these new days of Newt), the Moral Majority and all that ilk were pussycats compared to the nutcases today.

Obama will do what he can with the budget to salvage social programs. Just like health care reform. Once the dems take over the House next year; and believe me, they will!, things can be righted.

[ekg]

Bill and Hill didn't have to deal with the one thing Obama's dealing with. The Teabaggers and their insanity coupled with the resultant mass hysteria of the entire Republican Party. Back then, in the old days of Newt (as opposed to these new days of Newt), the Moral Majority and all that ilk were pussycats compared to the nutcases today.

Obama will do what he can with the budget to salvage social programs. Just like health care reform. Once the dems take over the House next year; and believe me, they will!, things can be righted.

I believe they will take it back, but I don't believe it will be much different. (Hopefully they get Pelosi back, say what you want, but she got her people to do what she wanted instead of the other way around....) Also, you will still have the tea-baggers and regular GOP members who can't have a dem victory even if it is good for the country, a dem caucus who aren't sheep like the GOP and a President who wants to look like compromiser in chief more than dem leader in chief..

unless he lets loose in the hopes of salvaging his legacy and finally pushes and holds his own to get what he wants done 100% instead of throwing most of it away and being happy with getting 15% of what he wanted.. then, it might be interesting..

[ekg]

This "mass" wants to know...

I kinda hinted to it when I said..

of course he can't be seen as getting 'angry'.. imagine all the 'angry black man' comments then..

Now, suspend the instant 'racism again' eye-roll for a minute and think about it.

He's the 1st black dude potus, he's battling against people who don't even believe he was born in this country and in a country where some places still consider blacks inferior. He has to be 'more than', 'better than' and 'less than' all at once..It's remarked on constantly that he never gets 'angry'.. he is always composed and cool.. those are the same buzz words as 'he speaks well'.. they mean that he's not like your typical angry black male, he actually knows his place..

and sadly, he does... he knows that it's hard enough for people to accept his name and skin color, if he shows any balls or emotion it would be even worse..

He's not accepted as being president, so imagine if he was pushy,snarky, and forceful like Bush.. he'd be called 'uppity' and 'impudent'

Imagine if he showed anger, he'd be the 'typical angry black man'..

This isn't just a 'black thing' either.. if it was HRC in the same spot she'd get the 'PMS' accusations whenever she showed emotion..only white dudes get to show emotion without a negative connotation  whispered behind their back..

Now, some will just roll their eyes and go on pretending this 'black thing' is all Liberal make-believe.. but as proof that I'm really not making it up, I give you just one single poll, from one single state on just one single issue which just so happens to include this President..

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal.

Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage.

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.

It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage, and this poll indicates it continues to be a controversial subject

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/

.


60% of the voters in one party, in one state either don't know or don't believe mixed marriages should be legal in this country. How do you think they feel about the offspring from said mixing? How do you think they would feel if that offspring started demanding things get done his way and showed emotions or passion in order to get his way? How would they feel if this offspring actually dared to make those around him, who happened to be white, do his bidding?

and that is Obama's conundrum. As long as we have people who feel this strongly about race, we'll have neutered black men in high positions.. men who 'talk nice' and act 'just like one of us'.. ya know the 'yessir masser' kind of black man..


that's the 'theory' anyway..

[uselesslegs]

Bravo, well explained.

[Howey]

Bravo, well explained.

I agree.

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

A new poll gauging Mississippi Republicans' preferences going into the 2012 election ended up revealing something more startling: 46 percent of GOP voters in the state think interracial marriage should be illegal.

Results were announced Thursday by Public Policy Polling, a polling firm based in North Carolina. The company asked 400 Republican primary voters about their preferences for candidates for state and national offices, as well as their views on interracial marriage.

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.

It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage, and this poll indicates it continues to be a controversial subject

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/

Gee. That would make a great thread! 

[lil mike]

 They told me if I voted for John McCain...
... we would see the administration argue that it had the right to declare war without Congressional approval.

And they were right!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/doj-s-bogus-case-war


The Obama Justice Department produced a 14-page document Thursday  justifying President Obama’s war in Libya. The document claims: “The President had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force in Libya because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.”

The Justice memo fully embraces the President Bush administration view of Executive Power and directly contradicts then-Senator Obama’s 2007 statement that: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” On March 27th, Obama’s Defense Secretary admitted that Libya did not pose an actual or imminent threat to the United States and “was not a vital national interest to the United States.”