Meanwhile, the U.S. is finally getting serious about addressing ongoing huge federal deficits. You can actually see daylight between the Republicans and the Democrats on how they'd deal with this issue:
The Obama Thread
Thu, 2011-04-14 08:11
#52
Thu, 2011-04-14 09:25
#53
And grievous as the acts of the U.S. military are - for who could deny the immoral nature of this monstrous empire in the world -anyone reducing the acts to "Obama kills" displays the insight of a juvenile, while remaining ignorant of the empire's hold on us all, beginning with the U.S.citizen.
The only one applying reductionism to the discussion is you, George. Apparently his level of personal complicity deserves a waiver because all of us bear the mark of Cain from having been born within the grip of empire. You put forward this ridiculous 'original sin' argument and expect it to suffice in reducing his personal accountability for monstrous crimes ordered up as a willing accomplice, to the level of someone enraptured by reality entertainment on a flat screen television. Its conveniently spread across the board on purpose as a result, and impossible to nail down, unless of course we're as contented as you appear to be with picking over remarkably similar shades of ideology in a futile search for the lesser harm. It's a process where we're expected to give him, his financiers, and his loyal following a pass from criticism, lest we betray our childish interpretation of events.
Thu, 2011-04-14 09:35
#54
Jack, you have chosen to rant on a single note rather than attempt to understand how the citizenry of Canada and the U.S. are reduced to watching conservatives dictate our future course of action and lives. That is just a tragic waste of time and communication effort, since it's finally just a moral lament and capitulation to the enemy. Perhaps I've missed your concerns for the economics of our situation, they've perhaps disappeared in your convoluted prose, but until you can come down to earth with your criticism of the U.S.administration and take the economic picture of administration and people into account, you are only pissing into the wind - to borrow another babbler's favourite phrase.
I doubt that you have even read ygtbk's recent posts, or tried to understand how that would relate to mainstreet U.S.A....and the political future.
Thu, 2011-04-14 09:40
#55
Republicans are liars. If they really wanted to save money they'd promote a public insurance option which avoids private insurers altogether. They pushed Obama away from a public option.
The New York Times article said federal money now goes 'directly to doctors and hospitals', but it goes directly to private insurers of those doctors and hospitals- it goes directly to the exponential profit margins of the private insurers of doctors and hospitals. That's why the costs are so high.
If Republicans were honest they'd be calling for direct payment for public health providers salaries, for pharmacare with generics and without twenty-to-thirty-year intellectual property rights (patent) protections that come in trade deals like NAFTA, and for direct management of the public health system by public employees, rather than by for-profit HMOs and insurers that are bleeding the health system and taxpayers. Canada similarly, instead of Harper's plan to take the US/EU financier prop-up road.
I know the NDP has stated clearly it would stop fee-for-service and uphold public insurance, and the Greens have said they oppose privatization of any kind in the healthsystem, i'll need to check Liberal's platform again. I think what bothers me with the Greens is that they're perfectly happy to have private financiers and insurers dealing with energy, so it makes you wonder if they really understand the problem, and if they'd cave if it came to letting financiers and insurers into healthcare. The Libs have caved before, so i don't really trust them, which is why someone has to keep tabs on them and their vote share. The only party reliably to do that is the NDP. The best scenario is to have a clear concrete coalition agreement in place for those tabs, getting back to public and not private for-profit insurance delivery, services and management. Ignatieff might otherwise align with Harperites when it comes down to rescuing profits of global financiers and insurers.
While i'm rambling here, I heard from the World Financial Crisis thread at babble that Soros and private elites were gathering in Bretton Woods to design a new financial order which would guarantee their control and profit stream for the next generation, in cooperation with Brazil, Russia, China, India, that means for the benefit of private finance in all countries at the expense of most of the population, and the planet, even if they say they'll invest in green energy.
Here's the thing; just like with private for-profit insurance, you get less for more. Their bottom line is shareholder profit, so they'll exploit all conditions- dirty fuel especially when it garners high prices with energy demand, and green, but because of the shareholder and profit demands, populations will get less benefit of either for their buck. They'll get less green energy and efficiency than they could if the system was kept out of the hands of private financiers and private generators and done publicly.
It's more important in the short and long term to shift away from private global financiers and towards public non-profit provision of fundamental services.
Thu, 2011-04-14 09:44
#56
remind
Yep, let the USA get rid of Obama and put the Trump in charge, and things will surely change.
Thu, 2011-04-14 10:00
#57
Yep, lets find whatever solidarity there is to be gained from excusing the lesser bastards. Apparently, this singular note that some insist on applying over everything is a more judicious use of time and effort. The real tragedy lays with your seriousness.
Thu, 2011-04-14 10:13
#58
remind
You mistake me for being seriously sarcastic...
Thu, 2011-04-14 11:32
#59
Northern Shoveler
George you think Bernie Sanders is too radical to get elected and apparently you are dead fucking wrong. The right runs nut jobs who get elected because they keep repeating their message no matter what and you say the left should not talk tough because they will look to radical. Radical compared to what Palin or Paul?
I accept that the world is an evil place and most citizens in our "advanced democracies" can be bought with the temptations displayed on a flat screen TV. Then what? You say isn't it great that Obama is not the worst of all evils. I on the other hand merely say all shades of evil are still evil.
Imagine if the Republicans had won how many countries would they have increased the killing in. Obama has surged Afghanistan, droned Pakistan and Yeman and No Fly Zoned Libya. Domestically he has given the go ahead to a new oil rush of deep sea drilling, handed great wads of cash to the bankers that collapsed the global financial system and sat on his hands as state govenors attack what in Canada we consider to be a fundamental human right. I agree the Republicans might be worse but my problem is I can never figure whether I would want to die quickly or just waste away and die in protracted agony.
Thu, 2011-04-14 12:25
#60
The correlation here with our own domestic politicks is pretty obvious, and I believe this is what largely informs much of what passes for Obama's defense. If some are cognizant enough of reality to be down in the mouth about the effects of his policies and decisions, similar minded people might begin to wonder why anyone worth supporting would attempt to mimic his approach as Layton tried to do with a speech from the 2008 campaign. And then there's the whole colonialism-lite mantra of the NDP, complete with its no fly zones, support for NGO and UN engagement with a government of occupation in Afghanistan, and the continuance of membership in an organization such as NATO, which serves western corporatism bloody well indeed as strong arm enforcers. It all boils down to a moral lament you see, unworthy sentiments that add nothing to the greater cause of the whatever movement, where the bar keeps being adjusted upward, and where no one appears to notice.
Thu, 2011-04-14 12:46
#61
We don't beat the bastards with a whine! Not when it's up to the working poor to decide our fate. Just had a talk with a neighbour who votes conservative...because of all those welfare bums. She also began to argue that Jack's spending proposals are just more of the old tax and spend routine to be expected from "the left."
I spent five minutes "correcting" her impressions, and explaining why she and her husband, a car salesman pushing huge GMC pickups, are only voting to end whatever is left of the social welfare system built in the postwar years. Voting for lower taxes and still wondering why hospital/medical services are going down the drain. But voting finally out of fear and anger....they have no private pension plan, she draws $370 months on CPP medical...they would be finished if anything medically happened to either one.
It was like reading about the late Joe Bageant's experience in the hills of Virginia.
And you expect those folks to be turned on by your concerns for the kids in Afghanistan?
Thu, 2011-04-14 14:26
#62
Northern Shoveler
George you hit it right on the nail that time. The essence of the difference in our opinions is yes I do expect people to have empathy for other humans. I don't think it will turn them on like sex, drugs or rock and roll but I believe all people are hard wired to feel others pain.
As for tax breaks for the poor they have to make enough income to pay taxes before any tax break affects them. There again you seem to place little faith in the unwashed masses and seem to be saying they can't be talked to like I could talk to you because they wouldn't get it. Again that is a point of difference in our world view. If you think having faith in my fellow humans is naive so be it but please quit with the personal attacks because you disagree intellectually and cannot imagine anyone else's opinion having even an iota of value.
I would tell you what I really think about your behaviour but that is against the babble policy.
Thu, 2011-04-14 16:58
#63
Look, Shoveler, we all know that you are morally superior and that you believe the masses will rise up in support of your position, despite what the polls suggest. I,too, expect people to feel sympathy for the plight of others. But I have come to expect that they first act out of sympathy/despair for their own situations and will cast a ballot after having rationalized their situation and come to justify their action. That neighbour I described is a solid church-goer, and a Catholic come over from the Presbyterian cause with her husband. (And if you ever bother to read McDonald's Armageddon Factor, you'll see that the attractiveness of the Cons under Steve has spread frighteningly to the Catholic world, a former Liberal bastion.) You see, I'm only trying to stop the amoral Cons from taking over, not taking on their values. Know the enemy.
But you go on comforting yourself with the world you've created - and apparently need - like the good scout you must be.
And don't ever stop at niceties if you really want to say what you think of someone else. Freud said that was not good for you.(Thanks Sigmund, but I'll take a pass this time.)
Thu, 2011-04-14 17:05
#64
Look, Shoveler, we all know that you are morally superior ...
But you go on comforting yourself with the world you've created - and apparently need - like the good scout you must be.
And don't ever stop at niceties if you really want to say what you think of someone else. Freud said that was not good for you.(Thanks Sigmund, but I'll take a pass this time.)
George, you're being antagonistic and personal. First warning.
Thu, 2011-04-14 18:45
#65
Northern Shoveler
That neighbour I described is a solid church-goer, and a Catholic come over from the Presbyterian cause with her husband. (And if you ever bother to read McDonald's Armageddon Factor, you'll see that the attractiveness of the Cons under Steve has spread frighteningly to the Catholic world, a former Liberal bastion.) You see, I'm only trying to stop the amoral Cons from taking over, not taking on their values. Know the enemy.
Frankly George when it comes to things in the realm of Political Studies I tend to place very little reliance on anecdotal evidence or the elite American media. So carry on and have a nice day.
Thu, 2011-04-14 21:11
#66
Northern Shoveler
Here is an interesting analysis of Obama's speech on the economy.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...
Thu, 2011-04-14 21:44
#67
That neighbour I described is a solid church-goer, and a Catholic come over from the Presbyterian cause with her husband. (And if you ever bother to read McDonald's Armageddon Factor, you'll see that the attractiveness of the Cons under Steve has spread frighteningly to the Catholic world, a former Liberal bastion.) You see, I'm only trying to stop the amoral Cons from taking over, not taking on their values. Know the enemy.
Frankly George when it comes to things in the realm of Political Studies I tend to place very little reliance on anecdotal evidence or the elite American media. So carry on and have a nice day.
But you saw me connecting it to Marci McDonald's Armageddon Factor, which notes the national nature of the phenom.
Not that there is anything wrong with anecdotal evidence to show that you are in touch with the real world:
Life is lived anecdotally, not algorithmically. And anecdotal evidence is not allowed in the new digital corpocracy. As one poster on Democratic Underground put it, "Anecdotal now has this enforced meaning such that no one is supposed to believe what they experience, what they see, feel, hear, touch....
But I'll bet Joe Bageant was too down to earth entirely for a IT worldview dominated by the politically correct and radical chic.
However, I'd best stop battling in defense of my own shrunken, morally corrupt worldview taken from a Canadian neighbourhood and nationally recognized author. It seems that I'm not supposed to respond to attacks on my ethical position. Cest la vie.
Thu, 2011-04-14 22:06
#68
It's taken some time, but folks in the Great Republic are finally catching on to what some frozen hillbillies have been saying all along.
Tax cuts for the rich -- budget cuts for the poor -- "reform" of the Democratic Party's signature safety net programs -- a continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies and a new Middle East war launched without Congressional approval. That's quite a legacy combination for a Democratic President.
All of that has led to a spate of negotiation advice from the liberal punditocracy advising the President how he can better defend progressive policy aims -- as though the Obama White House deeply wishes for different results but just can't figure out how to achieve them.
...I don't understand that assumption at all. Does anyone believe that Obama and his army of veteran Washington advisers are incapable of discovering these tactics on their own or devising better strategies for trying to avoid these outcomes if that's what they really wanted to do? What evidence is there that Obama has some inner, intense desire for more progressive outcomes? These are the results they're getting because these are the results they want -- for reasons that make perfectly rational political sense...
...It wasn't that they eagerly wished to defeat these Bush policies but just couldn't figure out how to do it. The opposite was true: they were content to acquiesce to those policies, if not outright supportive of them, because they perceived no political advantage in doing anything else.
..When does [Obama] offer stirring, impassioned defenses of the Democrats' vision on anything, or attempt to transform (rather than dutifully follow) how Americans think about anything? It's not that he lacks the ability to do that. Americans responded to him as an inspirational figure and his skills of oratory are as effective as any politician in our lifetime. It's that he evinces no interest in it. He doesn't try because those aren't his goals. It's not that he or the office of the Presidency are powerless to engender other outcomes; it's that he doesn't use the power he has to achieve them because, quite obviously, achieving them is not his priority or even desire..
Fri, 2011-04-15 14:40
#69
Boom Boom
Arizona GOP to Obama: Show Us Your Circumcision Certificate
excerpt:
The state's birther bill, which had until recently been sidelined, cruised through the state Senate on a 20-to-9 party line vote Wednesday and was passed by the state House late Thursday. It's now awaiting the signature of Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer. The bill, resurrected late last month with some minor changes, requires presidential candidates to provide a valid long-form birth certificate before they can appear on the ballot in Arizona. Because not all states even produce such records anymore, the bill allows prospective candidates to provide any two of the following documents in lieu of a long-form birth certificate: an "early census record," a signed post-partum medical record, a hospital birth record (also known as a certificate of live birth), or a baptismal or circumcision certificate.
Fri, 2011-04-15 17:34
#70
Even Bill O'Reilly calls these birthers stupid, saying that they should just drop it. He's gone so far as to post an image of Obama's birth certificate on his TV show, and yet these yahoos still persist in questioning Obama's birthplace. OK, they can't read, but don't they believe what they see on TV?
Fri, 2011-04-15 17:52
#71
Northern Shoveler
Barnum and Bailey made a great living out of middle america.
Mon, 2011-04-18 07:55
#72
And here's what the Republicans are already setting out to do. Republicans. The G.O.P.
N.Y.Times Editorial
The New Republican Landscape
From Congress to statehouses, a sweeping attempt to dismantle the social compact.
Mon, 2011-04-25 22:00
#73
President Obama Makes A Fair Trial Of Bradley Manning Impossible By Declaring Him Guilty - by Kevin Zeese
http://warisacrime.org/content/president-obama-makes-fair-trial-bradley-...
"The 'Bradley Manning exception to the Bill of Rights' devastates the credibility of the military justice system. Obama said on videotape that Manning was guilty..."
Sun, 2011-05-15 11:45
#74
Obama channels Sarah Palin.
U.S. President Barack Obama, under pressure from Republicans and the public to bring down gasoline prices, announced new measures on Saturday to expand domestic oil production in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Sun, 2011-05-15 12:26
#75
Northern Shoveler
The man is a beacon of hope for humanity.
Mon, 2011-05-16 16:18
#76
Boom Boom
The Obama Deception: Why Cornel West Went Ballistic
excerpt:
“This was maybe America’s last chance to fight back against the greed of the Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, to generate some serious discussion about public interest and common good that sustains any democratic experiment,” West laments. “We are squeezing out all of the democratic juices we have. The escalation of the class war against the poor and the working class is intense. More and more working people are beaten down. They are world-weary. They are into self-medication. They are turning on each other. They are scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful. It is a profoundly human response to panic and catastrophe. I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone.
excerpt:
“We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful,” he says. “It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties.
Tue, 2011-05-17 01:10
#77
Obama will win again, likely without the need for a people powered campaign. The USian left should be looking to win as many House and Senate seats as possible in the next 2 elections leading up to a real 2016 candidate.
Thu, 2011-05-19 14:07
#78
Trying to advance debate in the explosive Middle East, U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday endorsed a key Palestinian demand for the borders of its future state and prodded Israel to accept that it can never have a truly peaceful nation that is based on "permanent occupation."
Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders - those that existed before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza - was a significant shift in U.S. policy and seemed certain to anger Israel.
Israel has said an endorsement of the 1967 borders would prejudge negotiations. Obama also took pains to show respect for Israel's views ahead of his meetings Friday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/19/obama-arab-uprisings-speec...
Thu, 2011-05-19 15:37
#79
"Trying to "advance" "debate" in the "explosive" Middle East, U.S. President Barack Obama, the leading purveyor of explosive ordnance in the Middle East, made the same mellifuous, yet meaningless noises that POTI have been making for decades."
And you should see what the Angry Arab has to say.
He said that the US supports "reform" and "transition to democracy" in the Arab world. By reform, he means the repressive measures of the Bahrain dictatorship that his government has endorsed. By transition to democracy, he means that the US fully supports democracy in Saudi Arabia and other monarchies provided the transition takes place over a period of at least two centuries. Arabs are expected to cheer his words in the streets.
Obama's racism
Typical of US policy, Obama rehashed the typical US racism where the deaths of the Palestinians is not not mentioned when only the deaths of Israelis is mentioned. They invent a false equation: between "deaths of Israelis" and some vague formulation of "suffering" of Palestinians as if Palestinians are not victims of Israeli terrorism. I watch the speech and remember all my friends who could not understand why I would never ever vote for Obama.
It is not that it brought nothing new: It was not even novel or original rhetorically. I don't see any reason why he delivered it. I know that Obama's administration, like previous US administrations, assumes that Arabs are fools and can be deceived easily, but did those who worked on the speech really think that any Arab would be fooled with those words? Don't forget that his speech in Cairo came early in his administration and Arabs had high hopes about him. But Obama is giving the speech in light of his lousy record. I doubt that any Arab would follow it with interest even.
Thu, 2011-05-19 15:49
#80
In terms of domestic U.S. politics, the speech was a (baby) step in the right direction. With Netanyahu arriving tomorrow, AIPAC holding its convention, and the presidential election season drawing closer, that Obama could actually utter the words a "return to the 1967 borders" and "occupation," should be considered progress.
Thu, 2011-05-19 18:33
#81
In terms of domestic U.S. politics, the speech was a (baby) step in the right direction. With Netanyahu arriving tomorrow, AIPAC holding its convention, and the presidential election season drawing closer, that Obama could actually utter the words a "return to the 1967 borders" and "occupation," should be considered progress.
Josh, I respect your views - always - but what in God's name are you talking about? This is fucking George W. Bush talking through Obama's cynical smiling face. There is nothing new here. "Return to 1967 borders with land swaps" is George W. Bush's policy.
I'm starting a new thread so that this doesn't get mixed up with other sins of Obama:
[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/obama-adopts-geo... adopts George W. Bush's Israel policy[/url]
Sun, 2011-05-22 11:39
#82
Boom Boom
CBC headline just now: "Obama says he will make another raid in Pakistan if needed". So, if he has no problem with violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, Afganistan and Iraq, presumably he has no problem with violating the sovereignty of Canada, the UK, Cuba, or any other country - if needed?
Mon, 2011-05-23 02:52
#83
Slow down, everyone; Obama isn't quite the same as Bush:
As the Atlantic inquiry observes, "The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive." That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama.
There is Much More to Say
By Noam Chomsky
Mon, 2011-05-23 18:53
#84
Why Liberal Sellouts Attack Prophets Like Cornel West - by Chris Hedges
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/23-4
"...The liberal class, which attempted last week to discredit the words my friend Cornel West spoke about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, prefer comfort and privilege to justice, truth and confrontation. Its guiding ideological stance is determined by what is most expedient to the careers of its members. It refuses to challenge, in a meaningful way, the decaying structures of democracy or the ascendancy of the corporate state. It glosses over the relentless assault on working men and women and the imperial wars that are bankrupting the nation.."
Mon, 2011-05-23 22:14
#85
I just took a Wiki glance at Cornell West - "a socialist who rejects Marxism because Marx was an atheist".
Lets see... loves the ideas, believes in the doctrine, but unrelated conflicts [religion] determine his economic theory and the way he would run America.
Ah, so - Not an intellectual then?
Wed, 2011-05-25 10:42
#86
Choking On The Hypocrisy Of Obama's Hollow Platitudes
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/514-choking-on-the...
"Obama says he 'will not tolerate aggression across borders'. How then to explain US troops at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and missiles and bombs rain down on Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere?"
all our politicians say they are against war - they lie. Clearly, they lie.
Wed, 2011-05-25 10:48
#87
Boom Boom
Obama Two Face - sounds like a Batman villain. 
Thu, 2011-05-26 12:28
#88
Northern Shoveler
As an anti-war type I heard the imperial rhetoric during his primary run and during the election. He has always said that American exceptionalism gives it the right to rule the world. But only because lesser nations need the help of the great benevolent "advanced nations."
Us Canadians if we talked about our history would be laughing in derision every time America said it was invading a country to liberate the people from their oppressors. The war hawks in 1811 and 1812 used the same language of saving Canadians and the brutality of the British tyranny as we heard before Iraq and before Libya and are now hearing about Syria. The same lines have been used over and over for two centuries and our MSM still report them as if they were credible statements of fact. Obama is just the latest in a long line of President's who are only trying to save other peoples resources from falling into the hands tyrants. Of course once those resources are liberated from tyranny they will need the guiding hand of good old American business acumen. Look at the Philippines and their history after being liberated over a century ago by the benevolent Americans. They have a thriving economy based on supplying foreign military bases.
Thu, 2011-05-26 13:12
#89
As an anti-war type I heard the imperial rhetoric during his primary run and during the election. He has always said that American exceptionalism gives it the right to rule the world.
He smeagoled in much the same way when he accepted the Nobel "Peace" prize. I don't know whether his saying that waging war is bad, unless it's for the right reasons, was Kafkaesque or Orwellian, given the context.
Thu, 2011-05-26 13:28
#90
Sarko: "Gentlemen, pick a cheek and pucker up. After you Mr. President."
Thu, 2011-05-26 15:48
#91
That's Mubarak.
Thu, 2011-05-26 19:57
#92
Well that's odd. I could have sworn Sarkozy was wearing the exact same suit in another picture entirely.
Fri, 2011-05-27 10:58
#93
Obama Addresses UK Parliament: A Joint Agenda For Austerity and War - by Julie Hyland
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/obam-m26.shtml
"Barack Obama's three-day state visit to the UK was more than an extravagant PR opportunity for an increasingly discredited US president and Britain's deeply unpopular Conservative-Liberal Democrat government. It underscores the unity of Washington and London in attempting to push through a social counter-revolution in their own countries, while insisting on similar 'medicine' for the peoples of the world and threatening punitive action against any potential challengers.."
Sat, 2011-05-28 16:12
#94
Line up Obama with his fellow assassins, from Eisenhower through Bush, and I believe he's the most repellent of the bunch, down there with Woodrow Wilson. None of his rivals quite match the instinctive egotism that allows Obama effortlessly to affect the earnestness of a man taking the moral high road while executing a cynical program of electioneering-by-assassination.
Cynical but effective. The Republicans are in a state of total confusion and have no plausible candidate to run against Obama. The progressives are solidly behind their man.
Hairy-Chested Liberals Exult: Big Question, Who Do We Kill Next?
Sat, 2011-05-28 18:25
#95
The progressives will be focussing on the House and the Senate. Obama can coast to a win on his own.
Sat, 2011-05-28 18:47
#96
If these so-called progressives (a synonym for Democrat, or something else?) are in league with Obama the Lord High Executioner, what does "progressive" mean in the USA?
Sat, 2011-05-28 19:51
#97
I don't know what it is a synonym for in the article you quoted. I don't think they are "solidly behind their man".
Mon, 2011-05-30 14:06
#98
Listening to Obama's 45-minute speech this month – the "kick off' to four whole days of weasel words and puffery by the man who tried to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo two years ago, and then did nothing – one might have thought that the American President had initiated the Arab revolts, rather than sat on the sidelines in fear.
There was an interesting linguistic collapse in the president's language over those critical four days. On Thursday 19 May, he referred to the continuation of Israeli "settlements". A day later, Netanyahu was lecturing him on "certain demographic changes that have taken place on the ground". Then when Obama addressed the American Aipac lobby group (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) on the Sunday, he had cravenly adopted Netanyahu's own preposterous expression. Now he, too, spoke of "new demographic realities on the ground."
Mon, 2011-05-30 15:35
#99
Obama probably doesn't have to worry about finding a new job in 2012:
But the thing for the GOP today is that they have become so rabid that they cannot divorce themselves from their own litmus tests and fairytales, and they are now eating themselves up from within, like the rapacious cancer they in fact truly are. What can you possibly say, this side of Lewis Carroll or Salvador Dali, about a party in which the likes of Newt Gingrich is drummed out for being insufficiently regressive, and just plain lacking in an adequate degree of meanness?
...No one who isn’t as regressive as The Inquisition and as caustic as sulphuric acid will emerge with the Republican presidential nomination. The much beloved (in hagiographic form, at least) Ronald Reagan could never satisfy these monsters, so tame was he in comparison. So the question then becomes, can such a person hope to win the presidency in the general election?
Dispatches from the End of Empire
Wed, 2011-06-01 10:39
#100
Obama's UK-Fest: Visions Of A War Without End - by Felicity Arbuthnot
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25065
"...surely a moment to comment that this was a 'distraction' which was both illegal, had comprehensively ruined a civil society, largely destroyed a land of eye-watering beauty and ancientest of histories - and of course, those figures again: up to one and a half million dead, one million widows, nearly five million orphans and nearly five million displaced. An apocalyptic 'distraction.'
and yes, Canada, you DID participate.
Obama, Israel and Palestine - by Gulamhusein Abbas
http://defyingsilence.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-israel-and-palestine.html
"..The Palestinian State was neutered by Obama before its birth. The reality is that it is not Israel but the Palestinians who have been betrayed by Obama.
..It is time for the international community to wake up and take serious note of what is going on in that part of the world. There is need for them to take corrective action to right the wrongs that have been committed and continue to be committed..."
Fri, 2011-06-03 12:23
#101
Obama's popular somewhere.
The location of the Obama settlement is along the main road that connects the West Bank’s northern and southern regions; a consequence of building the settlement would therefore be to separate those territories permanently.
In order to make concrete the reality of settlement in these territories, the Israeli government has decided to move its police headquarters next to the Obama settlement.
Israeli radio reported that this step came to honour Obama’s positions in solidarity with Israel which he disclosed to his audience at the AIPAC conference.
Israel creates 'Obama' settlement, more obstacles for viable Palestinian state