Bakestar wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

this guy wrote:When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by. Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest.

harsh

BUSHITLER!

kruker wrote:It means exactly what I think it means, Doc. It's a characteristic that isn't endemic to this one interview. Watch the clip and draw your own conclusions, it isn't an emotion that is only expressed through one's words, but you know that.

[H]e, specifically, comes across as petulant when explaining his shortcomings.

drsmooth wrote:

kruker wrote:It means exactly what I think it means, Doc. It's a characteristic that isn't endemic to this one interview. Watch the clip and draw your own conclusions, it isn't an emotion that is only expressed through one's words, but you know that.

[H]e, specifically, comes across as petulant when explaining his shortcomings.

Oh. Since his words apparently don't express petulance - else you would have supplied relevant quotes - it must have been his manner, or his facial expression, or his "tone of voice". Care to go for skin pigmentation while you're getting all "I watch the games"-y on us?

pacino wrote:Also, Joe Miller is dying a not-so slow death according to a recent poll. And polls can't have lists of write-in candidates in Alaska. Go Scott McAdams Go!

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

azrider wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:A 20 second clip? Really? Again, I repeat. People need to chill. Get a grip.

We aren't going to replace dollars with Ameros either. Just in case you were worried about that. And Rick Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor may be an expensive boondoggle, but it doesn't threaten US sovereignty.

thank you for the response, but you made no attempt to answer my question as to what he meant in that clip. what civilian security force is he referring to and why is such a security force that would equal our armed forces is needed?

According to FactCheck.org...

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

And from the conservative internet publication American Thinker...

He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.

...

It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

Of course Glenn Beck and the like will tell you it means American Gestapo, but Beck is a nincompoop loon, a tool.

(there's something I haven't heard in awhile... calling someone a tool)

TenuredVulture wrote:Again, stop and think a second before doing this--just like the story regarding Ms. O'Donnell, this doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. The Bill has exactly one sponsor--Charles Rangel. He's been introducing a bill calling for a draft since 2003, not because he thinks it will pass, but as a protest against the war in Iraq--the argument that Bush would have been reluctant to invade Iraq if the US military was a cross section of young Americans from all social classes rather than primarily low income people.

Swiggers wrote:I don't care for O'Donnell at all, but all the Gawker piece is going to do is give sane people yet another reason to avoid seeking elective office.

azrider wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Again, stop and think a second before doing this--just like the story regarding Ms. O'Donnell, this doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. The Bill has exactly one sponsor--Charles Rangel. He's been introducing a bill calling for a draft since 2003, not because he thinks it will pass, but as a protest against the war in Iraq--the argument that Bush would have been reluctant to invade Iraq if the US military was a cross section of young Americans from all social classes rather than primarily low income people.

you mean that bill doesn't sound eerily similar to that speech? it doesn't force anyone to join the military and have to fight. it just requires that some sort of a national service is performed at the president's discretion.

(3) The term `national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

if his goal was the same as you stated why did this bill include "community service"? Why not just say military service if the goal is to simply scare someone as you have inferred?

"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Congressman Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children.

Another important difference between 1994 and today is that presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Democrats in Congress had already done the heavy lifting of getting the federal budget onto a sustainable path. In the 1990 and 1993 budget deals — both enacted against the strenuous opposition of congressional Republicans — taxes were raised and strong deficit controls put in place that led naturally to surpluses so long as the budget remained on auto-pilot, with no big new spending programs or tax cuts. Under these circumstances, gridlock was just what the doctor ordered.

It should be remembered also that Republicans had the very good fortune to take power right on the brink of the 1990s technology boom, which raised the real gross domestic product 4.7 percent in 1995, 5.7 percent in 1996 and 6.3 percent in 1997 — which sent tax revenues cascading into the Treasury.

But today the situation is quite different. The economy is in the tank and the budget is clearly on an unsustainable path, in large part due to actions taken by Republicans when they were in power. They completely dismantled the deficit controls put in place by the elder Bush and Clinton so that they could cut taxes willy-nilly without paying for them, and in the process thoroughly decimated the government’s capacity to raise adequate revenue to fund its essential functions. Adding insult to injury, Republicans enacted a massive new entitlement program, Medicare Part D, without paying for a penny of it on top of every pork barrel project any Republican ever imagined.

The point is that gridlock under today’s circumstances will not be benign, as it was in the late 1990s, but toxic, preventing our political system from grappling with problems that demand action and will only get worse the longer it is delayed.

Furthermore, in the 1990s there were still a few Republicans in Congress like Sens. Bob Dole and Pete Domenici who put the national interest above blind partisanship, and had long records of supporting politically painful policies to get deficits under control by both cutting spending and raising taxes. Today, I do not see a single Republican anywhere with their stature and sense of responsibility. Republicans now oppose deficits only in theory and care more about defeating Obama in 2012 than rescuing the nation from bankruptcy, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently admitted.

I hope I am wrong, but I don’t see any prospect of meaningful action by a Republican Congress that would reduce the deficit, and much reason to think it will get worse if they have their way by enacting massive new tax cuts while protecting Medicare from cuts. And as I have previously warned, I am very fearful that it will be impossible to raise the debt limit, which would bring about a default and real, honest-to-God bankruptcy — something many Tea Party-types have openly called for in an insane belief that this will somehow or other impose fiscal discipline on out-of-control government spending without forcing them to vote either for spending cuts or tax increases.