Just when you think Obama was done bending over backwards to please right-wing Republicans--voting for the Iraq War over and over and over, voting for the Afghan War over and over and over, proposing an Afghan surge, voting to gut FISA--he flip-flops on offshore oil drilling, an issue that had been settled decades ago.
As I ask so often...what next?
I'll zap Obama on FISA, but if ever there was a non-flip flop it's this one on the dumbass drilling issue. He basically said he'd be willing to consider some limited drilling under stringent conditions if it were part of a package he liked.
ReplyDeleteThis is a non-statement. If you won't allow him this small amount of political wiggle room you're saying you want Sweet Polly Purebread as a candidate. She'd get her ass kicked.
I lol-ed
ReplyDeleteLove THE FLY reference. This one really tickled my funnybone...
ReplyDelete--Dave
I question whether Ted has an unhealthy obsession with seeing Obama in the nude....
ReplyDeleteHe basically said he'd be willing to consider some limited drilling under stringent conditions if it were part of a package he liked.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in an earlier post when discussing Democrats' attitudes towards imperialism in general... "if they express limited support for an idea, what that means is they support the idea. So if you don't support the idea, you might want to consider voting for somebody else."
I don't particularly think Obama's "change" in position is the end of the world... but it _is_ worrisome. By announcing this, he is signaling that he is going to look for a proposal to accomplish drilling, (under limited circumstances of course), but he's going to look for this pointless "compromise" rather than sit back at his desk and wait for somebody to come to him with a proposal.
What makes it even worse is, from his other statements, it seems like Obama "gets" the idea that domestic drilling will not accomplish the things its supporters are promising. So why make this pointless compromise at all? The best motive you could attribute to him is, "he's doing it to pacify right-wingers and get them to work together with him." But... if he's going to do that for no good reason at all besides to win popularity, what else is he going to cede to the right-wingers? FISA, Iran aggression, the whole thing fits a pattern.
The whole problem we've experienced with Democrats for upwards of 15 years is, when they continue to cede these stupid and counterproductive issues to the Right just in order to "work with them", then what happens to the compromise is the Democrats quickly end up working right alongside the Republicans to bring about their wrongheaded and asinine policies, rather than leading the Republicans (let alone the rest of the nation) towards better policies.
funny stuff, but remember ted, you have that dude edward "the 13-yr old lawyer" hanging around your comments section, so you have to be more accurate, or he'll get all discombobulated and start quoting definitions. you were a science major, right? you should know that becoming a virus would do more than just put obama outside the animal kingdom, since technically (the most arousing word in the english language to those of edward's ilk), a virus is not even considered a living thing. sure, it's a complex little machine with its own genetic material, but it can't reproduce on its own without commandeering the reproductive machinery of a cell, so therefore it's not considered to fit the definition of life. and as all wingnuts know (edward definitely included), it's not what something is that matters, but what words we use to signify it. reality means nothing-- definitions of words are the only things worth arguing about!
ReplyDeleteso, since your cartoon implies that becoming a virus would entail only going outside the animal kingdom, rather than outside life itself, and since "kingdom" isn't even the top classification level anymore, then blah blah blah your ENTIRE CARTOON loses all credibility!!!!1 blah blah blah...
personally, i like your drawing of the obama-virus. as for the virus itself-- well, that i could do without; i've seen it infect way too many people near where i live (i'm near a hippie-enclave college town in northern california). i'm just glad some of us seem to have a natural immunity to it...
PS: now that i think about it, edward only seems to show up to mouth-breathe all over comments threads for cartoons/columns where you've bashed his hero, "the maverick" (LOL!!!), so i guess you don't have to worry too much about being technical if you're just picking on obama.
not that i think you "worry" too much about edward to begin with...
ReplyDeletePS: now that i think about it, edward only seems to show up to mouth-breathe all over comments threads for cartoons/columns where you've bashed his hero, "the maverick" (LOL!!!), so i guess you don't have to worry too much about being technical if you're just picking on obama.
When did I ever say I supported McCain?
See Devil, unless Edward tells you bluntly who he supports, you don't KNOW....this is a typical conservative position.
ReplyDeleteUnless George W. Bush says the words "The US Government tortures people," then it isn't true, no matter how much evidence there is for it, we can't KNOW, because those in charge have not TOLD us.
The same with Ron Paul (or any other libertarian) and the existence of society...they have to specifically state it. We can't infer anything from behavior, that's impossible.
These people say what they mean and mean what they say, literally and always.
So until our leaders SAY we're in a recession, people aren't suffering, because it's not a recession unless it's two quarters of negative growth, and that's more important than whether or not our economy has major problems.
Edward hasn't SAID anything, because this is all text-based, therefore nothing has been SAID.
You have to think extremely simplistically to even get on the same page. Then you can start to understand the literalists of the world.
Edward, although I disagree with about everything you say, and admit I get frustrated debating semantics, I must admit: you have the stones to become a part of a message board where you are obviously a minority, and your ideas aren't popular. Yet, you keep coming back, and remain civil. I have to respect that much.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad someone else commented on viruses...
ReplyDeleteNo politician anywhere, anywhere, should be promoting offshore drilling of any quantity (or basically any concessions to the oil industry) unless they want to live in a fossil fuel driven-world for the rest of their lives. "Compromising" (as Obama and other Democratic Senators want to do) on this issue shows that they want to live in the past. If they call themselves progressives, they have no idea what the word means.
Aggie:
ReplyDeleteSee Devil, unless Edward tells you bluntly who he supports, you don't KNOW....this is a typical conservative position.
That's correct you don't know who I support unless I tell you because you cannot read my mind. I do not support John McCain because he is not a conservative and I have never defended him here.
Unless George W. Bush says the words "The US Government tortures people," then it isn't true, no matter how much evidence there is for it, we can't KNOW, because those in charge have not TOLD us.
I have never claimed we are not torturing people. I do not support GITMO, nor do I support many aspects of the so called "Patriot Act". I do not regard GW Bush a true conservative. I do not believe government agents should be able to write their own warrents. I do not believe our government should be able to detain anyone indefinitely.
So until our leaders SAY we're in a recession, people aren't suffering, because it's not a recession unless it's two quarters of negative growth, and that's more important than whether or not our economy has major problems.
I'll address this for the last time. I argued a point of fact about whether or not we are in a recession. I never argued the point that people have it tough. If someone is going to state a fact that we are in a recession they should be factually correct.
I can tell from the replies to my post regarding my last point that many of you really hate being called out on being factually incorrect. I suspect this is a result of the fuzzy headed thinking taught in schools.
Edward, although I disagree with about everything you say, and admit I get frustrated debating semantics, I must admit: you have the stones to become a part of a message board where you are obviously a minority, and your ideas aren't popular. Yet, you keep coming back, and remain civil. I have to respect that much.
ReplyDelete....I don't, in real life there are consequences for being wrong. I don't have to respect anyone who so consistently gets it wrong....
Good one Ted. Edward is a R.I.N.O.(pronounced rhino: republica in name only). Like the "O" man is becoming a D.I.N.O.
ReplyDeleteThat's odd Aggie, I cannot find anywhere on this page where you have pointed out something I said that was factually incorrect.
ReplyDeleteedward keeps coming back because he is slowly turning into one of us. He admires our values, and feels increasingly conflicted for enjoying his bliss while we toil in liberal guilt.
ReplyDeleteWe welcome you edward. We love you.
Welcome to the RallCult!
(spirals)
Quoth Aggie:
ReplyDelete"The same with Ron Paul (or any other libertarian) and the existence of society...they have to specifically state it. We can't infer anything from behavior, that's impossible."
Would it be right then, Aggie, just because of Barackie O's association with Jeremiah Wright, and the latter's hard-hitting remarks about US goverment behaviour abroad and domestically, to infer that Barack is a radical Panther in disguise ready to unleash revenge on whitey as soon as he's in office? Good job playing by Rush Limbaugh's rules.
And I'm still waiting for you to come with a quote by Paul or Friedman where either says "society doesn't exist."
jaludtke said...
ReplyDelete"[...].If they call themselves progressives, they have no idea what the word means."
Not being glib or anything, but I always thought "progressive" is what socialists call themselves in America, just like social-democrats call themselves "liberals". Political discourse in the USA would be improved a great deal if people used the ideological identifiers that the rest of the world knows and understands, like, say, Rush Limbaugh admitted to being a bona fide fascist.
Bu then again, you guys are still stuck using imperial measurements.
I have been "following" ted since his days at KFI radio in Los Angeles. I rarely ever agree with his political opinions. However,I do appreciate his knowledge of the "Stans".
ReplyDeleteedward said: "I'm a conservative"
ReplyDeleteedward, you realize that "supply-side economics" is/are completely discredited, right?
Oh wait, you never said you believe in supply side economics...
edward, you realize that "supply-side economics" is/are completely discredited, right? I understand Marxists like yourself don't like supply side.
ReplyDelete