Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Palin 2012. Abandon your brains!
Mladic commanded military forces that seized the town of Srebrenica and butchered an estimated 8,000 Muslim men and boys . . . Mladic is due to be extradited to The Hague, Netherlands, to face charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.Mladic faces life imprisonment if tried and convicted of genocide and other charges. The U.N. court has no death penalty. . . President Obama, traveling in France, said Mladic would "have to answer to his victims, and the world, in a court of law."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na…
http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/05/16/…
In 2008, Democrats knew the only way they could win was to lock in one of two groups -- women (Hillary) or African-Americans (Obama). Hillary...Obama...Hillary...Obama...
Yes, I know that's its hard for most of you to remember 3 years ago, but in the Democrat Primary it was pretty much a toss up between (a) an established party politician, an esteemed Senator, and a self proclaimed political maven with "35 years of foreign policy experience" and (b) a guy from Illinois who had the political qualifications of a Chicago Alderman.
Democrats went with the guy who would guarantee them 11.5 percent of the vote.
This is an awesome and astute post.
That's like reverse racerism! Damn communists comin' ta take mah guns and party liquors!
How dare the dems choose a charismatic politician's politician (like the black vote would've been something other than democrat no matter who the democrat was--though turnout would've been smaller, and prop 8! Like that cinched it for obama, anyway) over a tired old insider in a farty pantsuit who blew her chance to run in 2004.
Be fair- Most mainstream democrats would be appalled by the fringe lunacy of Slog. No. It isn't a front for that party.
Or is there a party for people who hate their own countries' politics, and culture? Is there one for those who view the majority of their fellow citizens with contempt? How about one for those who espouse an economic theory proven everywhere tried to be a dismal failure?
Wait, that IS the Democrat Party. They just pretend it isn't and use social programs to bribe voters to forget the superciliousness with which they view those voters. (Remember Kerry telling American soldiers they were too stupid to do anything else. Go Dems!)
Sorry, my mistake.
And "white guilt" is nonsense. Everyone but the Republicans have gotten past skin color. And, yes, they do underestimate him, which I believe is a result of their racism. Obama has proven himself to be a great leader and has accomplished more in three years, including cleaning up the complete mess left to him by them, than all the Republicans since Eisenhower. And add to that his brilliant plan to bring bin Laden to justice and it is clear he is the kind of president we've needed for a long time.
That ability, in my mind, is the hallmark of a great liberal leader (Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton, Obama).
To my mind, the second group was probably larger than the first. Obama won mostly because after eight years of Bush Americans were ready for a change of leadership. Sadly we went from inept and criminal leadership to ineffectual and absent leadership.
A charismatic empty suit is exactly what Obama is.
Let's review- Elected in Illinois, he immediately jettisons his responsibilities to run for higher office in that state. Elected to that office he uses it as a platform to run for Senate, again ignoring his constituency and duties to do so. Serving a ridiculously short time in the Senate, with one of the worst attendance records in history, he begins his run for the presidency. In fact, rather than take the stands he was elected to take he most often votes 'present' so that no-one can pin a position on him. When he bothered to show up at all.
This man has never once done a real job. He was an attorney for a few months. He is a professor at a college, which is perfect for a man who wishes to do no work if possible. He has no professional of life training for the office he holds, and his tenure there shows this with terrifying clarity.
He took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution after publicly calling that document fatally flawed, which tells a great deal about his integrity.
/Rocky mountain way
This is what's boring, dwightmoodyisadope:
Obama only got into columbia 'acause his skin color!
Obama only got into harvard law 'acause reverse racerism!
Obama only got to be prezdent 'acause he's black!
Obama only got a sammich with brie, turkey and cranberry sauce because of his skin color! It's a goddamn communist homersexual sammich!
----------------------------
Been done quite a bit, and the only people dumber than those who believe it are those who think it's worthwhile to waste time refuting.
Yep. Because Reagan hadn't served his term as governor before vying for other offices...no, that isn't the similarity.
Or because he refused to take stands before polling the public for what stand would be popular...nah, that isn't it either.
I know! It's because Reagan associated with those who hated his country, even marrying a woman with open hatred of her own nation, spoke his disdain for this great nation often as an educator or attorney...Nope, not it either.
Sorry, what was your point again?
Leftists aren't liberals, they're just a different stripe of reactionary conservative, every bit as paranoid, naive, dogmatic, and unelectable as the tea-partiers.
Obama won largely because he delivered 60% of the expanded youth vote (under 34) in key battleground states (FL, NC, OH, VA, PA).
Yes, Dear. It's called the GOP. They discourage people from voting, they cheat on elections, and they are the masters of distortion.
They think we're all a bunch of idiots, and craft their messages to the lowest common denominator.
And they espouse an economic theory popularized by a B movie actor who was suffing from alhzeimers. Even that fink probably would have rejected it if he had had his wits about him. Then again, his Father-in-law was the one who turned him on to it, and he wouldn't want to go up against that dragon lady he married.
So yes, Seattleblah, there is a party that does all that. You are one of the naive ones they manipulate, by allowing you to project your personal flaws onto others, thus resolving you of any responsibility for your life: In the conservative mindset, they're always a victim, and it's always someone else's fault. That's why you like to make your stinks around here. It makes you feel all self-righteousy. And that's fine. After all, we liberals believe that If it feels good, you should do it. We support you engaging in your odd little kink.
Have a good Memorial Day Weekend, sweetness.
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
Please point to the Constitutional support for slavery. While doing this remember, if you can, that once an Amendment becomes part of that document it alters original language.
In passing, Obama took his notions about the Constitution from Thurgood Marshall, more or less whole. Marshall, a stellar justice who saw his opinions as more relevant than the Constitution itself (for reference see John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagen, and especially Sonia Sotomayor) believed oddly that the document he swore to uphold was fatally flawed. He said so on the remarkably appropriate occasion of the 200th anniversary of that document, as a sitting justice. To be fair Obama did no work in articulating this position, he merely stole it from someone else.
Further, the fact that our formative document allows an orderly process for changing it argues that the fatally flawed notion is, well, fatally flawed.
Hell, Republicans have already tried a similar obfuscation technique when they presented voters with Sarah Palin as a Veep choice, showing that they were just as ready to have a woman in power, especially as Hillary didn't get the nod as a Presidential candidate. You want a woman. We gotcha a woman so's you won't have to vote for that, uh, that man.
While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in
-B. Dylan
If you can't see how the inclusion of a process for rectifying flaws doesn't acknowledge the existence of flaws, then you're just an idiot.
If you can't see how the Civil War was almost the death of our nation, then...
Well anyway, go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
Republican do hate immigration and the melting pot, as well as spicy food.
"Is there one for those who view the majority of their fellow citizens with contempt?"
Coming from the xenophobic right, that's a hoot.
"How about one for those who espouse an economic theory proven everywhere tried to be a dismal failure?"
You mean those Bush tax cuts which gave us the greatest crisis of our generation?
Republicans: Projecting their lemons into lemonade.
Bush would have been rightly pilloried for being such a rapid fire gaff factory.
If, in Walsh’s statement, you replaced “Obama” with “Bush”, and “black” with “privileged son of a former US President” you would have the Democrat talking points on Bush. With Clinton it was “charm”.
If we assessed our past presidents qualifiactions based on the criticism of their opposition they would all be incompetent and all be elected because they were wealthy, privileged, charming, folksy or black. Fact is, all of these men have been more competent than their opposition gives them credit for and more the beneficiaries of their wealth, privilege, charm, folksyness and blackness than their supporters will admit.
And remember:
Everyone's a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.
@47- Civil Rights, yep. Pragmatic and empirical approach? Yes to the second but the first is just an excuse to be a weasel. "Open to evidence...." that's empiricism so yes.
So we disagree on "pragmatism" because "pragmatism" is a the code word Clinton came up with to completely remove any sort of values from his policy making. "Pragmatism" is doing anything to get elected and then doing the least possible for the people who elected you so that you might get elected again but will never be short on campaign donations, consulting jobs, and speaking engagements.
Progress has its own logic. As we all know, the sequence is: first Sisko, then Janeway.
You've been spending the past three years accusing Obama of everything Bush was guilty of, including not being able to give a speech without a teleprompter when Obama has given MANY speeches by memory, and NOW you're pretending to be reasonable and balanced?
You are a fucking moronic troll. Go back under your bridge.
Lincoln was a Republican.
In my view, the pragmatic liberal always has his/her sights on the principles of civil liberties and the common good, and is always seeking the most effective method to move towards those goals, even if that method entails short-term compromise or goes against left/right-wing orthodoxy.
Fuck you cunt.
They were too black (and not "articulate" enough).
Next they'll be saying he got elected because his middle name is Hussein.
I'm by no means a fan of Obama, but it's hard not to have some sympathy with him due to the fact that the most common accusations against him are so patently false.