PDA

View Full Version : Sole Black Senator not invited to March on Washington Celebration



Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 01:44 PM
Isn't that odd? You would think that he would be someone they would have at least invited. Guess the "party of inclusion" isn't so inclusive.

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 03:00 PM
Okay...a little truth would be good.

He was invited to attend, but not invited to speak...

Not everyone can be invited to speak. I know, it's gonna be all "Well, he's the only black Senator"...but if he had been invited, it would have been find some other black guy that wasn't invited and make that a story instead...no matter what, some important black man wasn't going to be invited to speak.

Not what I read...

"The only current African American member of the U.S. Senate, Tim Scott, was not invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, even though high-profile celebrities including Oprah Winfrey and Ambassador Caroline Kennedy were included in the lineup."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sole-black-sen-tim-scott-invited-speak-dream-event-article-1.1440736

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 03:04 PM
It always confuses me when your comments indicate disagreement, but then you post a quote that confirms what I just said.

heh heh heh...tried to delete it but couldn't.

TJMAC77SP
08-30-2013, 03:12 PM
I can't say much on the decision to invite Sen Scott to speak or not since it is true that not everyone can speak but when you reveal that Caroline Kennedy was invited to speak I have to wonder if the Senator's party had anything to do with the decision.

The only currently serving black senator, one of only eight to have served and he is from South Carolina....

On the other side it seems some GOP leadership should have made the time to attend.

CYBERFX1024
08-30-2013, 04:16 PM
I can't say much on the decision to invite Sen Scott to speak or not since it is true that not everyone can speak but when you reveal that Caroline Kennedy was invited to speak I have to wonder if the Senator's party had anything to do with the decision.
The only currently serving black senator, one of only eight to have served and he is from South Carolina....
On the other side it seems some GOP leadership should have made the time to attend.

Yeah the GOP leadership should have attended. But why go to a event just to be vilified? It's already thought of in the majority of black people that the Conservative/Republicans are racist and want to turn back the clock on the civil rights movement, and that is how the Democratic Party has played their cards the last number of years.
I understand that MLK's "I have a Dream" speech was momentous, not just for the civil rights movement but for America as a whole. But we have moved a long way past that as whole society. My father has spoken to me about the civil rights movement and what it entailed. I am from Greensboro NC, where the sit ins first started by 4 A&T students. My father used to tell me how he back in the day he would go to Wolworth's on S. Elm and watch the spectacle. Then he would tell me that in his younger days he was discriminatory, but now he has moved on as man and human being. He is not like that anymore. That was my 2 cents on how America has changed from a personal perspective.

But think about this. The ONLY black Senator in the Congress is from the supposed backward and racist state of SC, who was appointed there by a Indian-American Governor. If that isn't funny I don't know what is.

Rusty Jones
08-30-2013, 04:20 PM
Isn't that odd? You would think that he would be someone they would have at least invited. Guess the "party of inclusion" isn't so inclusive.

He probably didn't want to go anyway. Black conservative politicians tend to distance themselves from the black community by choice anyway.

CYBERFX1024
08-30-2013, 04:45 PM
He probably didn't want to go anyway. Black conservative politicians tend to distance themselves from the black community by choice anyway.

On what side of the aisle are you talking about?

Rusty Jones
08-30-2013, 04:59 PM
On what side of the aisle are you talking about?

Not sure exactly how I can make what I said more clear...

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 05:01 PM
On what side of the aisle are you talking about?

Rusty is of the opinion that no black person could possibly be a Republican. He also doesn't think it is possible for a black person to be a racist so....

Rusty Jones
08-30-2013, 05:10 PM
Rusty is of the opinion that no black person could possibly be a Republican. He also doesn't think it is possible for a black person to be a racist so....

Pulling things out of your ass once again, I see?

Pullinteeth
08-30-2013, 05:25 PM
Pulling things out of your ass once again, I see?

Are you trying to say that you never said such a thing? Even when positing under another SN?

Rusty Jones
08-30-2013, 05:26 PM
Are you trying to say that you never said such a thing? Even when positing under another SN?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

TJMAC77SP
08-30-2013, 05:30 PM
Pulling things out of your ass once again, I see?

Rusty you did pretty much say that when referring to Michael Steele. In fact I almost included that in my original post but this thread started a bit confrontational so didn't want to add to the fire.

TJMAC77SP
08-30-2013, 05:31 PM
We all need to realize that about 2 million websites and "journalists" make a living by turning every little detail into "outrageous conduct" by the "other side" who are obviously trying to "ruin the country"...blah, blah, blah...

Ain't it the truth !!??

AJBIGJ
08-30-2013, 07:24 PM
We all need to realize that about 2 million websites and "journalists" make a living by turning every little detail into "outrageous conduct" by the "other side" who are obviously trying to "ruin the country"...blah, blah, blah...

It sells, or at least appears to. To be honest, I'm not sure if, in the social media day and age, if news networks could even survive without all of these "inflammatory statements" and such. Information being so widely available in so many different ways the competition in that market is everywhere. The only way people will ever tune in anymore is when it's lively and entertaining for the viewer. "Grandma getting run over by train" no longer draws an audience any longer, "Black Grandma run over by train, Engineer determined to be white, hate crime investigation commences" would fare much better.

AJBIGJ
08-30-2013, 07:41 PM
It sure does...apparently, people love to be pissed of at the other side and have their fears confirmed.

Yes, it's all been very polarizing for the country...

I dunno, man...it'd be nice if people would verify anything that sounds outrageous with a credible newsource...but it seems a lot of people believe the fringe websites are the real "truth tellers"

I think part of the problem is the difficulty in even defining a credible news source any longer. It seems as if bias gets hold of even the most determined critical thinkers out there (I wish I myself were immune). I don't think the credible ones even get enough ratings to be put on the map, people, at least on average, don't seem in general to be all that interested in information that is purely factual. They seem to want an outspoken rant that agrees with them that they can nod their heads to and quote as pure gospel, or outspoken rants that disagree with them that they can get downright frustrated with. The market is responding to consumer demands, and this is the product we get.

AJBIGJ
08-30-2013, 09:22 PM
I must admit, I was somewhat surprised that there is only 1 black Senator.

I was too, I guess there are only 100 though, still that seems very low for the demographic breakdown of society, especially with race relations such a hot topic in recent years.

sandsjames
08-31-2013, 12:45 AM
I was too, I guess there are only 100 though, still that seems very low for the demographic breakdown of society, especially with race relations such a hot topic in recent years.

I think we should vote more in, just to make the numbers look better. That's what it's all about.

efmbman
08-31-2013, 01:05 AM
I think I saw a tweet about O'Reilly apologizing about this story. Perhaps some truth was twisted somewhere?

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 01:49 AM
I think we should vote more in, just to make the numbers look better. That's what it's all about.

Heh, I can claim one vote for Virginia, no black guys ran last election, damn, maybe next time!

sandsjames
08-31-2013, 01:04 PM
One thing that might help change the demographic is some sort of term limit. It's hard to vote in anyone new when the current senators have been in place for 50 years.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 02:41 PM
One thing that might help change the demographic is some sort of term limit. It's hard to vote in anyone new when the current senators have been in place for 50 years.

it's a funny irony that the approval ratings for Congress are so dismally low, yet the longevity of incumbents so very high. I sometimes wonder if we truly do have democratically elected representatives, or if the elections themselves are a facade.

Okie
08-31-2013, 02:43 PM
To be fair, MLK wasn't invited to speak in Washington, DC fifty years ago, either.

Greg
08-31-2013, 02:55 PM
it's a funny irony that the approval ratings for Congress are so dismally low, yet the longevity of incumbents so very high. I sometimes wonder if we truly do have democratically elected representatives, or if the elections themselves are a facade.

There was a segment on one of the Sunday morning talk show on this topic not long ago.

Even though Congress, as a whole, has one of the lowest ratings in its history, each Representative's approval ratings, from their respective constituents, are at a very favorable high.

It goes to show, no matter what, take care of your people!

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:01 PM
There was a segment on one of the Sunday morning talk show on this topic not long ago.

Even though Congress, as a whole, has one of the lowest ratings in its history, each Representative's approval ratings, from their respective constituents, are at a very favorable high.

It goes to show, no matter what, take care of your people!

Which generally costs money, quite a bit. It is no accident that a cut to a proposed increase in Federal spending is such a controversial thing in the media.

efmbman
08-31-2013, 03:07 PM
Which generally costs money, quite a bit. It is no accident that a cut to a proposed increase in Federal spending is such a controversial thing in the media.

Those cuts are also used to keep their people in line. If you rep a district in Oklahoma, you could don't care what the people in Jersey think of you (until you want to be POTUS). On the other hand, if a rep from Oklahoma is not spouting the party line, let's leak that a large portion of funding will be cut off which will greatly affect that area. The people will not connect the dots to see that the cut in funding was not the fault of the rep - all they will see is that the funding was cut under his watch. Any opponent in the next election will certainly pounce on that and campaign to restore the funding. If the opponent spouts the party line, the funding will be restored magically and the opponent (now the winner) will reap benefits for as long as he remains in the good graces of the party. And people say organized crime is dead in America.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:10 PM
Those cuts are also used to keep their people in line. If you rep a district in Oklahoma, you could don't care what the people in Jersey think of you (until you want to be POTUS). On the other hand, if a rep from Oklahoma is not spouting the party line, let's leak that a large portion of funding will be cut off which will greatly affect that area. The people will not connect the dots to see that the cut in funding was not the fault of the rep - all they will see is that the funding was cut under his watch. Any opponent in the next election will certainly pounce on that and campaign to restore the funding. If the opponent spouts the party line, the funding will be restored magically and the opponent (now the winner) will reap benefits for as long as he remains in the good graces of the party. And people say organized crime is dead in America.

What's funny, if you ever go back and study the politics of the Roman Republic, it operated in precisely the same fashion.

Greg
08-31-2013, 03:15 PM
Which generally costs money, quite a bit. It is no accident that a cut to a proposed increase in Federal spending is such a controversial thing in the media.

It has made headlines in the area where I live, but some private donors have picked up some of the slack, which is a good thing.

Even though I benefit from a couple programs, I wouldn't mind seeing some of this wasteful spending curtailed. It has gotten way out of hand, IMO.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:18 PM
It has made headlines in the area where I live, but some private donors have picked up some of the slack, which is a good thing.

Even though I benefit from a couple programs, I wouldn't mind seeing some of this wasteful spending curtailed. It has gotten way out of hand, IMO.

I too do my best to look at things holistically. I think that's part of the reason that I've gravitated towards Libertarianism over the last decade.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:24 PM
Another interesting historical tie is if you look into the personal commentaries made by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in detail, the dudes weren't just smart, they were damn near prophetic, the Age of Enlightenment truly was that!

efmbman
08-31-2013, 03:29 PM
I too do my best to look at things holistically. I think that's part of the reason that I've gravitated towards Libertarianism over the last decade.

I think I have as well... not to the "Ron Swanson" extreme, but yeah.

Greg
08-31-2013, 03:30 PM
I too do my best to look at things holistically. I think that's part of the reason that I've gravitated towards Libertarianism over the last decade.

I agree. Dole/Kemp in '96 was the last time I voted Republican, and did not pick up another ballot till '08. By then I re-registered as an Independent.

But then again, I've never voted strictly along party lines. I have an Irish surname. Ha-ha-ha.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:31 PM
Check out this shiznit from the Introduction of the Federalist Papers:

"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government."

efmbman
08-31-2013, 03:41 PM
Check out this shiznit from the Introduction of the Federalist Papers:

"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government."

Prophetic indeed. I think we may be there or very close to that now.

Greg
08-31-2013, 03:43 PM
Check out this shiznit from the Introduction of the Federalist Papers:

"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government."

The bold should be plural, as in "classes."

Grover Norquist
Jesse Jackson
Directors of PACs
Certain CEOs
Heads of Finance
The DNI
The Director of the FBI

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 03:54 PM
I doubt it would serve our collective interests to regurgitate the entire compilation of those documents here on the MTF, but suffice it to say, there's plenty more where that came from.

Pullinteeth
09-03-2013, 01:52 PM
Well, the One black Senator was appointed, not elected.

If I am not mistaken, last year there were two black senators and BOTH were appointed...


To be fair, MLK wasn't invited to speak in Washington, DC fifty years ago, either.

Really? Where did you get that? If that were true, why did he go to speak to the President before he went to the Mall? Why did he have a speech written? How did he get on the dais? Or are you actually referring to Michael Luther King Jr's father? If so, why WOULD he have been invited?


There was a segment on one of the Sunday morning talk show on this topic not long ago.

Even though Congress, as a whole, has one of the lowest ratings in its history, each Representative's approval ratings, from their respective constituents, are at a very favorable high.

It goes to show, no matter what, take care of your people!

Not so much anymore...a couple of months ago, a poll showed about 40% of Americans favored tossing them ALL out and starting over...

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-03-2013, 08:02 PM
Okay...a little truth would be good.

He was invited to attend, but not invited to speak...


Not everyone can be invited to speak. I know, it's gonna be all "Well, he's the only black Senator"...but if he had been invited, it would have been find some other black guy that wasn't invited and make that a story instead...no matter what, some important black man wasn't going to be invited to speak.

Some more truth would be good, Bushs were ill. The other GOP invitees were invited last minute. The sole Black senator wasnt invited at all.

Rusty Jones
09-03-2013, 08:13 PM
Complaint of random black person being slighted = race baiting

Complaint of known black conservative being slighted = legit

...right?

Bunch
09-03-2013, 08:22 PM
Complaint of random black person being slighted = race baiting

Complaint of known black conservative being slighted = legit

...right?

Going off topic a bit here but...

Kind of like...

GOP going to war with Iraq due to non existent WMD's= Legit

Obama ordering airstrike due to people actually dying of WMD use= Impeachment

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2013, 11:49 AM
Going off topic a bit here but...

Kind of like...

GOP going to war with Iraq due to non existent WMD's= Legit

Obama ordering airstrike due to people actually dying of WMD use= Impeachment

Not agreeing with any silly calls for impeachment but do you see the karma coming back here?

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 05:20 PM
Going off topic a bit here but...

Kind of like...

GOP going to war with Iraq due to non existent WMD's= Legit

Obama ordering airstrike due to people actually dying of WMD use= Impeachment

First off, Congress includes Democrats (and a couple Independents) and they approved the Iraq war as well. Second of all, the Kurds would beg to differ with your evaluation of Iraqs WMD status. And it looks like Obama is going to follow the same path as well and get Congress to sign off before he rains down the pain...

Bunch
09-04-2013, 05:32 PM
First off, Congress includes Democrats (and a couple Independents) and they approved the Iraq war as well. Second of all, the Kurds would beg to differ with your evaluation of Iraqs WMD status.

I'm talking about the present, you ask GOP'ers if the war in Iraq was justified, many still to this day say yes even though no WMD's were found.

Now we have concrete evidence that WMD's exist and are being use but because is Obama then no.

But I like this though that means that in the future when ever a war mongering repub wants to start something, we can go back and point out to this episode to vote against any future oil war.

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 05:40 PM
I'm talking about the present, you ask GOP'ers if the war in Iraq was justified, many still to this day say yes even though no WMD's were found.

Now we have concrete evidence that WMD's exist and are being use but because is Obama then no.

But I like this though that means that in the future when ever a war mongering repub wants to start something, we can go back and point out to this episode to vote against any future oil war.

I didn't see that the GOP voted no? Do you have a time machine? BTW, haven't seen concrete evidence as to WHO exactly is using the WMDs...I have my suspicions but both sides claim it is the other side....

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 06:01 PM
I'm talking about the present, you ask GOP'ers if the war in Iraq was justified, many still to this day say yes even though no WMD's were found.

Now we have concrete evidence that WMD's exist and are being use but because is Obama then no.

But I like this though that means that in the future when ever a war mongering repub wants to start something, we can go back and point out to this episode to vote against any future oil war.

I think the lines are fairly similarly drawn back then for intervention as to now, the primary difference you see in the vote for Syria is primarily the results of the 2010 elections, that and the fact that Candidate Barrack Obama from 2007 and President Barrack Obama from 2013 would have an interesting debate going on. There are also a few D's in the ranks who suddenly prefer hawk feathers to dove feathers. McCain, Graham, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, they've always been fairly consistently oriented towards more intervention in just about any opportunity they see for doing so. I'm sure a few R's have changed their tune, on one occasion maybe just because our President seems to want Syria to happen, but I've not noticed very many. I think Syria, much like Iraq before it, will be one of the few Bipartisan agreements you'll see any longer that doesn't directly involve the NSA.

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 06:05 PM
I'm talking about the present, you ask GOP'ers if the war in Iraq was justified, many still to this day say yes even though no WMD's were found.

Now we have concrete evidence that WMD's exist and are being use but because is Obama then no.

But I like this though that means that in the future when ever a war mongering repub wants to start something, we can go back and point out to this episode to vote against any future oil war.

There's a difference. With Iraq, we have hindsight. As far as everyone knew at the time, there were WMDs. At least that's what everyone was told. With Syria, hindsight will give us the answer as well. If we attack and it actually makes a difference, then it will be considered a bold move. If things end up going the way of Iraq or Afghanistan, then Obama will be criticized for his decisions just as GW was. No matter what the political views are, ultimately we are a results driven country. If it works, then it was worth it. If it doesn't, then it was a stupid thing to do. Unfortunately, we can't know the outcome ahead of time.

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 06:53 PM
I'm talking about the present, you ask GOP'ers if the war in Iraq was justified, many still to this day say yes even though no WMD's were found.

Now we have concrete evidence that WMD's exist and are being use but because is Obama then no.

But I like this though that means that in the future when ever a war mongering repub wants to start something, we can go back and point out to this episode to vote against any future oil war.

You mean kinda like when Joe Biden threatened impeachment against Bush if he didn't go through Congress? So if Congress votes this down and Obama acts on his own, I will be looking to you and Biden to start impeachment proceedings.

You mean like candidate Obama vs. the apparent hawk that we have now? "That guy called my bluff--how dare he!! Bomb them now!!"



CHRIS MATTHEWS: You said that if the United States had launched at attack on Iran without Congressional approval, that would've been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made?

SENATOR JOE BIDEN: Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don't say those things lightly, Chris. you've known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that -- and I don't say it lightly, I don't say it lightly. (Hardball, December 4, 2007)

Now let's talk about Obama's logic...These "rebel" opposition are the same Islamic militant Al-Qaeda types that have been going around beheading Christians and others, eating hearts out of dead Syrian soldiers and who would love to get their hands on Syria's WMD (and have already been caught with canisters of Sarin). WHY would we want to help them? Yeah!!! That's the ticket!! Let's actually HELP Al-Qaeda!!!!

It was reported that at the end of July, over 100,000 people have been killed in Syria. So let me get this straight...100,000 is fine, but 1500 get gassed and now there's some 5-alarm reason for us to get involved?

Not to mention the 400,000+ killed and the 2.5 million displaced in Darfur that we obviously could give a crap about...but oh, we need to keep Obama from looking weak now!!!!

And BTW, Saddam Hussein used gas too, but I guess that don't count.

Bunch
09-04-2013, 07:03 PM
You mean kinda like when Joe Biden threatened impeachment against Bush if he didn't go through Congress? So if Congress votes this down and Obama acts on his own, I will be looking to you and Biden to start impeachment proceedings.

Joe Biden?!!! please....now you cons want to make Biden your go to guy in foreign policy...give me a break!!! lame!


And you are trying to re-write history. Bush's argument wasn't to take out Hussein simply because he had WMD's. It was that in the wake of 9/11, those could be given to Al-Qaeda.

The goal just keep moving with you guys...


Now let's talk about Obama's logic...These "rebel" opposition are the same Islamic militant Al-Qaeda types that have been going around beheading Christians, eating hearts out of dead Syrian soldiers and who would love to get their hands on Syria's WMD (and have already been caught with canisters of Sarin). WHY would we want to help them?

Because we are the god damn U.S.A and thats what we do, we get involved in shit that is none of our business ALL THE TIME!!!


It was reported that at the end of July, over 100,000 people have been killed in Syria. So let me get this straight...100,000 is fine, but 1500 get gassed and now there's some 5-alarm reason for us to get involved?

The imaginary red line has been crossed dude...and you know what they say about crossing the imaginary red line...

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 07:12 PM
I blame Bush.

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 07:15 PM
Joe Biden?!!! please....now you cons want to make Biden your go to guy in foreign policy...give me a break!!! lame!

You're right...Dems need to quit referring to this guy as some foreign policy expert. He's and idiot.



The goal just keep moving with you guys...

Are you serious? That was THE stated reason for going in. Everything else is/was secondary.



Because we are the god damn U.S.A and thats what we do, we get involved in shit that is none of our business ALL THE TIME!!!!

You're right again!!! I wonder how this newfound love affair with supporting Islamic terrorists is supposed to square with what candidate Obama said about war...yet here we are.



The imaginary red line has been crossed dude...and you know what they say about crossing the imaginary red line...

Yup. Obama hearts Al Qaeda. Therefore, we must act in their defense.:cheer2

Bunch
09-04-2013, 07:25 PM
You're right...Dems need to quit referring to this guy as some foreign policy expert. He's and idiot.
Name one...


You're right again!!! I wonder how this newfound love affair with supporting Islamic terrorists is supposed to square with what candidate Obama said about war...yet here we are.

HAHAHAHAAHAHA...... and you said this with a stragiht face?!!!...HAHAHAHAHAHA.... conservative leaders have been to most public lovers and supporters of arab terrorist in HISTORY.... conservatives have been supporting terrorist fighters since the 1980's ... clearly you dont know what you are talking about.....


Yup. Obama hearts Al Qaeda. Therefore, we must act in their defense.:cheer2

Really really lame!!!

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 07:35 PM
Name one...

Ummm...go back and ready any story leading up to the debate between him and Paul Ryan. All the liberal ga-ga news media think he is some foreign policy wizard....(But you already know this, so I'm not sure why you posed such a ridiculous challenge).



HAHAHAHAAHAHA...... and you said this with a stragiht face?!!!...HAHAHAHAHAHA.... conservative leaders have been to most public lovers and supporters of arab terrorist in HISTORY.... conservatives have been supporting terrorist fighters since the 1980's ... clearly you dont know what you are talking about.....

Nothing funnier than watching liberals rail against conservatives for what they do or have done, and then watch these same liberals turn around and point to conservatives as examples when they do the EXACT same thing, as if now it were a good thing. Too funny.




Really really lame!!!

Except that you cannot deny that attacking Syria will be helping Al Qaeda. You go with that and keep waiving those pom-poms in support of bipolar Obama and his band of merry terrorists.

Bunch
09-04-2013, 07:45 PM
Ummm...go back and ready any story leading up to the debate between him and Paul Ryan. All the liberal ga-ga news media think he is some foreign policy wizard....(But you already know this, so I'm not sure why you posed such a ridiculous challenge).
So you cant name one? You just putting things out of your ass...classic conservative move



Nothing funnier than watching liberals rail against conservatives for what they do or have done, and then watch these same liberals turn around and point to conservatives as examples when they turn around and do the EXACT same thing, as if now it were a good thing. Too funny.

And I'm just pointing the irony of the conservative mind...is not like your are not doing what you claim the other side is doing....


Except that you cannot deny that attacking Syria will be helping Al Qaeda. You go with that and keep waiving those pom-poms in support of bipolar Obama and his band of merry terrorists.
Yeah... and thanks to GOD Reagan and poppa Bush we got "freedom fighters" sticking planes into buidlings in the USA...way to show'em GOP, that how you teach them, buy arming them, funding them and them watch them land planes inside our tallest buildings....thats how you show them!!!

GTFOH with the Obama nonsense, the GOP'ers have consistently being in bed with muslim terrorist for the past 30-40 years!!!

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 07:48 PM
I believe we're off-topic.

2 demerits.

You are right. Back to the black senator. As we all know, those few black senators will never make anything of themselves because they aren't given the opportunities. I mean, it's not like one of them could ever become President or something.

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2013, 07:51 PM
I'm talking about the present, you ask GOP'ers if the war in Iraq was justified, many still to this day say yes even though no WMD's were found.

Now we have concrete evidence that WMD's exist and are being use but because is Obama then no.

But I like this though that means that in the future when ever a war mongering repub wants to start something, we can go back and point out to this episode to vote against any future oil war.

I think I read that the GOP leader in the House and Senate say they back the strike.

Bunch
09-04-2013, 07:56 PM
You are right. Back to the black senator. As we all know, those few black senators will never make anything of themselves because they aren't given the opportunities. I mean, it's not like one of them could ever become President or something.

Your right back to the story...

I have nothing to say about a totally made up story which Bill O'reilly had to apologize because he was caught in the hook of the right wing media bubble of fallacies....

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 07:56 PM
So?Are you going to hold it against them for being sick and not making it to this event? Thats pretty cold.


So...all members of Congress weren't invited at the same time on the same form letter?Ok, invited yes. But invited to speak was last minute and they figured talking with their constituents was more important than just standing out on the mall for 2 hours.


To SPEAK...wasn't invited TO SPEAK. He was invited to attend along with all other members of Congress, and declined.
Well, that was the entire "outrage" from those that made this an issue, that he wasnt invited to speak like Oprah, Jesse Jackson, etc.

Pullinteeth
09-04-2013, 07:57 PM
I think I read that the GOP leader in the House and Senate say they back the strike.

Nah....bunch has a time machine....he said they already voted...

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 07:59 PM
First off, Congress includes Democrats (and a couple Independents) and they approved the Iraq war as well. Second of all, the Kurds would beg to differ with your evaluation of Iraqs WMD status. And it looks like Obama is going to follow the same path as well and get Congress to sign off before he rains down the pain...

Lets be honest, there was no Independents in congress that voted to go to war.

Rusty Jones
09-04-2013, 08:02 PM
I think I read that the GOP leader in the House and Senate say they back the strike.

And I really believe that there are ulterior motives behind this. I don't like Boehner, but he's a smart man. Obama tries to give the people what they want, he blocks it. Obama want to give the people what they don't want, Boehner is all for it. Because, in either case, Boehner's hands are not the ones that will be seen as dirty.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 08:05 PM
I'm talking about the present, you ask GOP'ers if the war in Iraq was justified, many still to this day say yes even though no WMD's were found.Guess were syria got their WMD's.


Now we have concrete evidence that WMD's exist and are being use but because is Obama then no.There is no more evidence that says Assad used the WMDs than to say Iraq just had them. We knew Iraq had them, we sold them the WMDs.


But I like this though that means that in the future when ever a war mongering repub wants to start something, we can go back and point out to this episode to vote against any future oil war.
I love this narative. In the past 100 years, which presidents didnt take us to a war (or military action)? In the past 100 years, who controlled the majority of congress? In the past 100 years, who has the higher body count of us troops on foreign soil?

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2013, 08:07 PM
And I really believe that there are ulterior motives behind this. I don't like Boehner, but he's a smart man. Obama tries to give the people what they want, he blocks it. Obama want to give the people what they don't want, Boehner is all for it. Because, in either case, Boehner's hands are not the ones that will be seen as dirty.

An interesting but unsurprising opinion.

So, to borrow from another poster what you are saying is:

If the GOP opposes Obama's strike votes against it they are wrong.

If the GOP agrees with and votes for the strike they are wrong.

??

Bunch
09-04-2013, 08:12 PM
Guess were syria got their WMD's.
Can you provide me a source that is not a right wing blog? Please.


There is no more evidence that says Assad used the WMDs than to say Iraq just had them. We knew Iraq had them, we sold them the WMDs.
What?Huh? Link? Source?



I love this narative. In the past 100 years, which presidents didnt take us to a war (or military action)? In the past 100 years, who controlled the majority of congress? In the past 100 years, who has the higher body count of us troops on foreign soil?
Your right about this one. This is a country with an endless thirst for WAR, some are justified, some are not...but it seems like we always need to be bombing the crap out someone or something...

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 08:14 PM
HAHAHAHAAHAHA...... and you said this with a stragiht face?!!!...HAHAHAHAHAHA.... conservative leaders have been to most public lovers and supporters of arab terrorist in HISTORY.... conservatives have been supporting terrorist fighters since the 1980's ... clearly you dont know what you are talking about.....
Well, Obama did keep comparing himself to Regan, and now he can try to pull down the mythical legacy of the GOPs golden boy by doing exactly what he did that led to 9/11. Glad Obama is taking this kamakazi plunge to sink the GOP. Hopefully the Libertarians are going to be stepping up and replace the GOP as the GOP replaced the WIGS.

Bunch
09-04-2013, 08:17 PM
Well, Obama did keep comparing himself to Regan, and now he can try to pull down the mythical legacy of the GOPs golden boy by doing exactly what he did that led to 9/11. Glad Obama is taking this kamakazi plunge to sink the GOP. Hopefully the Libertarians are going to be stepping up and replace the GOP as the GOP replaced the WIGS.

Not about loving and wanting to hold hand with muslim terrorist...

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 08:17 PM
So you cant name one? You just putting things out of your ass...classic conservative move

The funny part is that you know I'm right, but yet continue to deny it. Not to mention, that was the reason Biden was brought onto the ticket with Obama.


Senator Biden, who is 65, brings 35 years of Washington experience to the Obama campaign. He is current Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it is in this area that many believe he will be Obama's greatest asset while campaigning. Many have pointed out Senator Obama's lack of experience, not only in general, but especially with regard to international affairs. Senator Biden's experience should nullify both accusations.

http://voices.yahoo.com/joe-biden-announced-as-obamas-vice-president-cnn-preempts-1847234.html?cat=75


Chief among Mr. Biden’s strengths is his familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues, highlighted just this past weekend with the invitation he received from the embattled president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, to visit Georgia in the midst of its tense faceoff with Russia. From the moment he dropped out of the presidential race, he had been mentioned as a potential Secretary of State should either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton win the election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/politics/24biden.html?_r=0

How many do you want dude?



And I'm just pointing the irony of the conservative mind...is not like your are not doing what you claim the other side is doing....

No your not. You're trying to justify actions by Obama by pointing to Bush and others. The old "but the other guy did it, so that makes it OK". That's the only argument you have and it's weak sauce bro.


GTFOH with the Obama nonsense, the GOP'ers have consistently being in bed with muslim terrorist for the past 30-40 years!!!

LOL, but now it's a-OK that Obama is doing it. Too funny.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 08:17 PM
Nothing funnier than watching liberals rail against conservatives for what they do or have done, and then watch these same liberals turn around and point to conservatives as examples when they do the EXACT same thing, as if now it were a good thing. Too funny.

No, when Bush did it, it was a war crime. This is being done by the savior in chief using his own personal military to spread his peaceful ways that always leads to utopias....like Eygpt, Lybia, Iraq. Nothing wrong happening in those contries at all. Certainly no discrimination or deaths of a certain sect of the population. Hell, not even a death of any Americans either... :/

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 08:19 PM
You are right. Back to the black senator. As we all know, those few black senators will never make anything of themselves because they aren't given the opportunities. I mean, it's not like one of them could ever become President or something.

Well, what happened to Jesse Jackson Jr? Why didnt he speak?

Bunch
09-04-2013, 08:23 PM
The funny part is that you know I'm right, but yet continue to deny it. Not to mention, that was the reason Biden was brought onto the ticket with Obama.

I never had consider Joe Biden any sort of expert on foreign policy or Hillary Clinton for that matter.


No your not. You're trying to justify actions by Obama by pointing to Bush and others. The old "but the other guy did it, so that makes it OK". That's the only argument you have and it's weak sauce bro.

Quote me here saying that Obama should attack Syria, show me...once again puliing things out of your ass...I'm just showing you the irony of the conservative minds... "If its done by Obama is bad"!!!!


LOL, but now it's a-OK that Obama is doing it. Too funny.

Too funny ....yeah...too funny!!!

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-04-2013, 08:24 PM
Can you provide me a source that is not a right wing blog? Please.

What?Huh? Link? Source? Sure, it came from the same place that you have linked.


Your right about this one. This is a country with an endless thirst for WAR, some are justified, some are not...but it seems like we always need to be bombing the crap out someone or something...
Sadly, I think the constant state of war is what has made this country very pussified. Those that generally go off and die in war are "alpha" males while the pansy, criminals, and drugies are left behind with an ever growing population of women to procreate with. Especially after Nam when it became all voluntary to sign up, more Alphas started going inplace of the drafted betas.

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 08:24 PM
Well, what happened to Jesse Jackson Jr? Why didnt he speak?

I have no idea. Wouldn't care to speculate. My question is this: Is it necessary for every black public figure to speak at these events?

Bunch
09-04-2013, 08:27 PM
Sure, it came from the same place that you have linked.

So you also pulling things out of your ass?....seems like a trend with conservatives...

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 08:29 PM
No, when Bush did it, it was a war crime. This is being done by the savior in chief using his own personal military to spread his peaceful ways that always leads to utopias....like Eygpt, Lybia, Iraq. Nothing wrong happening in those contries at all. Certainly no discrimination or deaths of a certain sect of the population. Hell, not even a death of any Americans either... :/

I don't disagree with you. At first, I was in favor of Iraq and thought he needed to go. In hindsight, the costs outweighed any benefit and we have spent the last xx number of years listening to liberals tell us how wrong it was blah, blah, blah...

Now, fastforward to 2013 and we have these same liberals telling us we need to start another unprovoked war. I learned my lesson and admitted Iraq was not worth it.

With these liberals it is obviously just about politics.

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 08:33 PM
What am I holding against them? Did I say anything negative about the Bushes?



Okay...so what? I don't believe I criticized anyone for turning down any invitation.



Well...they original "outrage" stated that he wasn't invited to the March. To which I replied with a little clarifying truth...that he was invited, just wasn't invited to speak. Which was then confirmed by the OP.

Then you start posting all of this other "truths"...supposedly against some points that I wasn't making.

Hey...a little more "truth" for you.
-There are 50 states, not 52
- North Carolina and South Carolina are actually separate states
- There are 24 hours in a day
- John Quincey Adams was the 6th President, not 2nd...his father, John Adams, was the 2nd.

Wait...what? Not 52 states, but South and North Carolina are separate? So now I'm left trying to figure out what the 52nd state would have been, since the Carolinas only count as 1, obviously bringing the total to 51.

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 08:39 PM
Those were separate truths, not necessarily tied directly together.

Washington DC is not a state.

Ohh...ok...thank you very much. It through me off. As long as I know there's 52 I feel ok.

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 08:40 PM
What are you talking about now?

Nothin', really.

Rusty Jones
09-04-2013, 08:49 PM
If one were to believe that North Carolina and South Carolina were one state...that would actually bring the total to 49.

Well, the original Carolina colony consisted of what is now both Carolinas and Tennessee.

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 08:58 PM
If one were to believe that North Carolina and South Carolina were one state...that would actually bring the total to 49.

No, because there are 52, so if they were separate, then that would bring it to 53...

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2013, 09:37 PM
According to a recent New York Times article...University of South Carolina playing their IN-STATE rivals, University of North Carolina:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/23381440/photo-ny-post-declares-carolinacarolina-matchup-instate

3310

You guys have my head spinnin' !!

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-05-2013, 07:58 PM
So you also pulling things out of your ass?....seems like a trend with conservatives...

LOL, you are saying all you have been doing is citing is quotes from your ass? Interesting.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 01:56 PM
I have no idea. Wouldn't care to speculate. My question is this: Is it necessary for every black public figure to speak at these events?

It was apparently an attempt at humor because Jesse Jackson Jr. is in prison.

sandsjames
09-06-2013, 02:07 PM
It was apparently an attempt at humor because Jesse Jackson Jr. is in prison.

Ahh...gotcha...missed that one.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 02:16 PM
Quote me here saying that Obama should attack Syria, show me...once again puliing things out of your ass...I'm just showing you the irony of the conservative minds... "If its done by Obama is bad"!!!!

If it makes you feel any better, this time around event the Democrats might not vote for it...

"The specter of defeat is starting to hang over President Obama’s drive to win congressional backing for a Syria strike, as his team struggles to win rank-and-file support in the House – with even top ally Nancy Pelosi saying she’s not sure she can round up a majority of her caucus."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/06/obama-struggling-to-win-support-on-hill-world-stage-for-syria-strike/#ixzz2e7O9gb9F

sandsjames
09-06-2013, 02:39 PM
If it makes you feel any better, this time around event the Democrats might not vote for it...

"The specter of defeat is starting to hang over President Obama’s drive to win congressional backing for a Syria strike, as his team struggles to win rank-and-file support in the House – with even top ally Nancy Pelosi saying she’s not sure she can round up a majority of her caucus."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/06/obama-struggling-to-win-support-on-hill-world-stage-for-syria-strike/#ixzz2e7O9gb9F

Please leave Pelosi's caucus out of this. I know it would definitely leave me feeling inadequate.

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 05:26 PM
Never fear, Obama says he is willing to ignore the U.N....

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/06/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't he rail against that in the past?

Pullinteeth
09-06-2013, 05:43 PM
I'm sort of baffled by this.

Any idea why Obama wants to attack Syria?

There's really nothing in it for him...he's certainly not going to oust Assad with a limited strike. So, there will be no victory...and limited attack really gains him nothing, but a lot of criticism. What's in it for him? He couldn't really be just thinking it's the right thing to do...is there any possible "victory" here?

When Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan...at least he thought it would be a major victory from freedom and democracy that would spread across the middle east ushering in a period of peace, tranquility and human rights...I mean, that would've been an awesome thing if it worked. It didn't really, but if we only had hindsight...

But, with this Syria thing...I don't think Obama or anyone else wants to get fully immersed there...he just wants to throw a few bombs, right? What's there to gain?

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not...

If you are, yes there are some obvious correlations with Iraq (without the international support or percieved vested interest).

If you aren't, the reason being given is that it is the "right" thing to do-hard to support given that there are people doing far worse to people that can't even defend themselves but not necessarily WRONG. Another reason (IMO) is that Obama believes at least a bit of his hype and feels the need to weild the proverbial big stick to back his "red line" statements.

I find it hard to condemn him for wanting to act but find the way he is going about it more than a bit hipocrytical...

AJBIGJ
09-06-2013, 06:39 PM
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not...

If you are, yes there are some obvious correlations with Iraq (without the international support or percieved vested interest).

If you aren't, the reason being given is that it is the "right" thing to do-hard to support given that there are people doing far worse to people that can't even defend themselves but not necessarily WRONG. Another reason (IMO) is that Obama believes at least a bit of his hype and feels the need to weild the proverbial big stick to back his "red line" statements.

I find it hard to condemn him for wanting to act but find the way he is going about it more than a bit hipocrytical...

I think if you interpret Obama's motives for Syria as what lies on the surface, I think it would be fair to label him as a "moron". I don't think he's a moron at all, he's a pretty slippery politician if I play the law of averages. He'll come out ahead politically regardless of the outcome IMHO.

First, I think the best way to describe Syria in his terms is as a "convenient distraction", for many Democratic politicians this seems to be the case, that's why they seem to be fair-weather chicken hawks, sounding the cry to war when it fits their individual political agendas from my perspective. They support the cry for war because one of their own does, whereas the ideological "liberals" tend to be much more gun shy when it comes to aggressive foreign policies.

First Potential Outcome: Congress gives the "no" vote; easy day, Obama drew his "Red Line" and has been called to task. Now, it wasn't his fault, the Congress wouldn't let him do it. The situation becomes a bit more problematic if this occurs and he decides to go in anyways, which will make politics, shall we say, interesting for years to follow... I see it as a possibility if Obama feels the need to carry the distraction further then he might go this route, but I don't expect this to happen based on being especially enthusiastic about protecting the Syrian Rebels.

Second Potential Outcome: Congress gives the green light; I think this outcome helps him in the next set of budget talks. The next CR, there is a lot of rhetoric surrounding "Defunding Obamacare". It seems to have some traction, it will be a bit harder to spin if Congress puts a CR on his desk with everything funded but his pet project. Every war in our history has been pretty good incentive towards devoting more taxpayer dollars than they might have otherwise. I can see some Republicans in Congress being much more reluctant to be painted as the ones shutting down the government when we're well-entrenched towards Military Action in Syria. This may make a few of them a bit trigger shy when being faced with the prospect of a war they agreed to being setback by budget talks.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-06-2013, 07:02 PM
I think the lesson learned so far is "never say 'never or always'"...I think he may have backed himself into a corner with his red-line stuff, but I also don't think it's too late to change his mind...

Well, to be fair, Obama's words were "If chemical weapons 'readily' get used, it would be a red line and it would change his 'calculus' on the situation". (I know my spelling is off). He doent actually say if this red line gets crossed, I will attack Assad.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-06-2013, 07:16 PM
Then he has an out!

So, what's in it for him to attack Syria?

It gets his al queda friends into power just like he helped them in Libya and Egypt.

AJBIGJ
09-06-2013, 07:23 PM
I don't believe that.

Yeah I can't say that ever seemed to be a viable motive to me either, it just makes convenient rhetoric.

efmbman
09-06-2013, 08:13 PM
So, what's in it for him to attack Syria?

Very good question. For most persidents, the legacy is the most important aspect of the administration. In many cases, this boils down to the Supreme Court. Obama has had two appointments to the Supreme Court: Sotomayor and Kagen. But was this enough to shift the Court decisively to a liberal court? Ginsburg is rumored to ne retiring soon (cancer), so another appointment would "pack the court".

Maybe he wants to show how Democrats would handle military intervention as a contrast to the Iraq/Aghan wars.

TJMAC77SP
09-06-2013, 09:12 PM
I'm sort of baffled by this.

Any idea why Obama wants to attack Syria?

There's really nothing in it for him...he's certainly not going to oust Assad with a limited strike. So, there will be no victory...and limited attack really gains him nothing, but a lot of criticism. What's in it for him? He couldn't really be just thinking it's the right thing to do...is there any possible "victory" here?

When Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan...at least he thought it would be a major victory from freedom and democracy that would spread across the middle east ushering in a period of peace, tranquility and human rights...I mean, that would've been an awesome thing if it worked. It didn't really, but if we only had hindsight...

But, with this Syria thing...I don't think Obama or anyone else wants to get fully immersed there...he just wants to throw a few bombs, right? What's there to gain?

I don't think Obama wants to strike Syria. I believe his words have him painted into a corner and he is looking for a way out. I believe that is the only reason to wait for Congress to vote.

EDIT: Oops, you said that didn't you?

Rusty Jones
09-06-2013, 09:28 PM
I don't think Obama wants to strike Syria. I believe his words have him painted into a corner and he is looking for a way out. I believe that is the only reason to wait for Congress to vote.

And that's probably why Boehner is giving him the go-ahead.

I hate Boehner with a passion, but he's doing EXACTLY what I would do.

I hate - I just HATE - when a wimpy dude challenges a dude who could easily snap him like a twig to a fight, when he knows that people are going to hold them back from eachother.

And I'm usually that guy in the group who will say, "He's badass enough to think he can take that guy? Fuck this, everyone get back. Let's see how bad he really is!"

Of course, I get ignored, but... if the situation went the way I want it to, it force the wimpy guy to either go through with what he said and face the fallout... or to cower out, and show everyone that he's all talk.

Boehner's doing this to Obama. Smart move. Very smart move.

AJBIGJ
09-06-2013, 09:38 PM
And that's probably why Boehner is giving him the go-ahead.

I hate Boehner with a passion, but he's doing EXACTLY what I would do.

I hate - I just HATE - when a wimpy dude challenges a dude who could easily snap him like a twig to a fight, when he knows that people are going to hold them back from eachother.

And I'm usually that guy in the group who will say, "He's badass enough to think he can take that guy? Fuck this, everyone get back. Let's see how bad he really is!"

Of course, I get ignored, but... if the situation went the way I want it to, it force the wimpy guy to either go through with what he said and face the fallout... or to cower out, and show everyone that he's all talk.

Boehner's doing this to Obama. Smart move. Very smart move.

I think you might be right on that, but the President has a certain knack for turning these situations into a macabre "roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote" scenario where Boehner (the coyote) seems to get caught up in his own traps. It'd be almost comical if there wasn't so much at stake in their political games!

Pullinteeth
09-07-2013, 02:17 PM
I don't think Obama wants to strike Syria. I believe his words have him painted into a corner and he is looking for a way out. I believe that is the only reason to wait for Congress to vote.

EDIT: Oops, you said that didn't you?

Not so sure about that. I think a week or so ago, he was hellbent on going. He thought it would be an easy sell with international cooperation (kinda like Iraq). Now the wheels have come off and the brits backed off and Congress is balking and he is sort of left holding the saber....

TJMAC77SP
09-08-2013, 02:11 AM
Not so sure about that. I think a week or so ago, he was hellbent on going. He thought it would be an easy sell with international cooperation (kinda like Iraq). Now the wheels have come off and the brits backed off and Congress is balking and he is sort of left holding the saber....

You could be right about originally wanting to go but by the time push came to shove he was looking for the back door.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-11-2013, 07:54 PM
I don't believe that.

Is this like when Joe said he didnt believe the Muslim brotherhood would become the ruling political party in Egypt? Its a good thing the military there still had a good sense about them not to keep the MB in power and ousted the President when they did.

imported_WILDJOKER5
09-11-2013, 07:58 PM
Maybe...I thought he did that well with Libya (i.e. don't get too involved)
He really didnt get involved as they killed our ambassador.