i actually know a bunch of super liberal people who are doing just that, some of them are really disappointed with obama

3/1/2011 9:55:30 AM

Yeah, I know plenty of liberals that aren't happy with Obama. I mean, if you're anti-war, how could you be? When Bush was in office, it was bring the troops home now. That's still my position, and if you do object to the killing going on, it shouldn't matter what party is in office. Hopefully, more liberals are coming to understand that the Democratic party is not "their side."

3/1/2011 12:18:34 PM

Quote :

"I mean, if you're anti-war, how could you be?"

Well he actually "mission accomplished" in Iraq, I'm excited about that.

3/1/2011 2:25:25 PM

How do you win a war that was illegal, unjust, and immoral to begin with? By reducing troop levels and establishing a permanent presence there? No, by admitting wrongdoing and putting a decisive end to the occupation.

3/1/2011 3:19:32 PM

Quote :

"How do you win a war that was illegal, unjust, and immoral to begin with?"

Win is a relative turn, and illegal is just plain wrong. I disagreed with paying what it would cost in lives and dollars to get what we wanted there, and we were lied to about the cost of it, but after we've already paid for it, it seems silly to just throw it away.

3/1/2011 4:00:35 PM

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/01/new-bill-would-require-barack-obama-to-provide-proof-of-birth-to-get-on-georgia-ballot/

Quote :

"New bill would require Barack Obama to provide proof of birth to get on Georgia ballot State Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, just handed me a copy of his new bill, HB 401, which would require President Barack Obama to provide certified proof of his birth to the Georgia secretary of state in order to appear on next year’s presidential primary and general election ballots. The bill has the signatures of 94 members of the 180-member House"

3/1/2011 9:18:53 PM

^ are these people serious? haha. How retarded can these people be? Amazing so many people still do not think Obama is a legitimate American Citizen. Absolutely hilarious.

3/1/2011 9:49:34 PM

In Georgia people still name their kids Robert Lee and John Wilkes.

3/2/2011 10:07:08 AM

Obama is going down so hard in 2012.

3/2/2011 11:57:51 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/07/obama-brings-military-tribunals-guantanamo-bay/

Quote :

"President Obama announced Monday that military trials will resume for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, a move that won praise from Republicans, who say the president has finally "seen the light" on the value of trying such detainees at the facility. "

3/7/2011 10:30:58 PM

Soooo... are you praising him, or faulting him for that?

3/7/2011 10:33:38 PM

Please read thread title.

3/8/2011 7:20:51 AM

Only 77 pages?

Oh that's right. This is a college message board. I tend to forget many of you posters don't have any real world experience.

3/8/2011 9:53:30 AM

actually, there aren't many college students here you troll

3/8/2011 10:06:36 AM

Just get those fuckers tried and gone so we can close that shit-hole. If it were up to me, I'd send them back to the respective areas where they were apprehended. Let those justice systems handle it.

3/8/2011 11:32:59 AM

EIGHT YEARS OF FAILED POLICIES!!!! ... which i am continuing, teehee

[Edited on March 8, 2011 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2011 8:17:33 PM

^expanding is more accurate.

3/8/2011 9:03:07 PM

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM. Reason : !!]

3/10/2011 10:09:33 AM

goddammit i did it again

3/10/2011 9:14:45 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51455.html#ixzz1Grs5SuY0

Quote :

"A second stimulus for K Street? By: Chris Frates March 17, 2011 04:39 AM EDT For all his anti-lobbyist rhetoric, President Barack Obama has done more than almost anyone to help K Street fatten its wallet. First came his push to pass health care and Wall Street reforms, an epic two-year stretch of bruising legislative battles that saw lobbying revenues skyrocket. But the boom didn’t end when the legislation became law. Now, regulators are writing hundreds of new rules required by the twin reforms, creating a bonanza of new business for Washington lobbyists positioned to help companies influence and comply with the new regulations. Call it K Street’s second stimulus. “A lot of people did very well in the lobby community off the Recovery Act,” said Democratic lobbyist Rich Gold. “Regulatory work is the new Recovery Act for lawyers and lobbyists in Washington.” Indeed, firms across the city are staffing up and touting their expertise in the regulatory arena as they compete for lucrative regulatory clients, which can bring in two to three times the fees of a more traditional lobbying contract. And unlike traditional lobbying, regulatory work is part of the largely unreported influence economy, like political intelligence, grass roots and research. Reported lobbying brought in $3.5 billion last year, and insiders estimate that shadow lobbying, including regulatory work, brings in at least that much, if not more. And Gold is making sure that his lobbying law firm, Holland & Knight, is well-positioned to cash in. In fact, five of the firm’s eight most recent hires are experts on the regulatory front. Former Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) said there is “no question” that the abundance of regulatory work influenced his decision to sign on with Holland & Knight, where he will start work Monday. “Certainly having been a participant or part of one of the busiest congresses in decades, where large pieces of legislation have passed and will be evolving for many, many years to come, this moment becomes a unique time to take [to the private sector] the experiences of having served on the Financial Services Committee or having been involved in passing health care,” he said. “It sort of allows me to be in a unique place to understand that.” Klein’s background as a corporate lawyer and former state and federal lawmaker means he’ll be selling his ability to provide legal, political, policy and business advice to prospective clients. By law, Klein is banned from lobbying for one year after leaving office, but he has not ruled out future lobbying. The wave of new rule-making “appears to create a lot of work and opportunity for businesses that want to make sure that they have a strategic business advantage in the future, that they’re planning for the future and that they can help shape those laws and legislation as they develop,” said Klein, who left public office in November after being defeated by Republican Rep. Allen West. The regulatory work comes at a time when most insiders expect less action on Capitol Hill to mean fewer dollars for legislative lobbying. Indeed, Gold, who heads Holland & Knight’s public policy and regulation group, said he expects about a 5 percent dip in the amount of legislative work this year. But he expects a 15 percent to 20 percent jump in regulatory work to translate to a 10 percent to 12 percent increase in the firm’s overall revenue. For instance, in the first two months of this year, Gold said, his lobbying work was down $165,000, but his regulatory work increased by $635,000. And much of that work won’t show up on the firm’s lobbying reports because the disclosure laws only require lobbyists to report contact with more senior officials, he said. “Very little of the work we do is reportable,” Gold said. But it is lucrative — even more so than traditional lobbying — because of its complexity. Firms that do regulatory work often have teams of specialists who can lobby lawmakers and regulators, help companies navigate the rule-making process and comply with new rules and challenge those rules in court. “Our sweet spot is a client that needs regulatory and lobbying work,” said Mike House, the head of lobbying law firm Hogan Lovells’ legislative practice. “You just have double or triple the amount of money coming into the firm.” And instead of losing clients when the legislative lobbying winds down, House said, “you just have them in another area.” For lobbying law firms, especially, it’s a virtuous circle that begins with legislation, moves to regulation and litigation and, eventually, ends right back with more legislation. Hogan Lovells has 300 lawyers who work on regulatory issues and has made about 10 hires in the last few months. The prime candidate is someone who worked for either of the committees that drafted the health care or financial reform bills and the agencies that are now implementing those reforms, House said. “Right now, the health practice is looking to add,” House said. “They are busier than they’ve ever been.” Nick Allard, a senior partner in Patton Boggs’s lobbying and regulatory practice, said the firm has between 150 and 200 lawyers engaged in public policy work, and “we’re operating at full capacity on regulatory matters.” “What is new is sort of a sheer scope and magnitude of these new programs. They’re larger and come in combination in a way that’s unprecedented in any recent memory. The sheer volume of work to be done is breathtaking,” Allard said. “Fundamentally, regulatory work is not sexy, but it’s very, very important.” Allard said implementation of the new laws will stretch over the next decade. “If I were a young attorney,” Allard said, “I would take a very serious look at mastering one of these new regulatory fields, because they’re exciting and they’re going to be around for a long time. There will be a lot of careers made on these new areas.” Or as another lobbyist put it, “God bless Barack Obama, he’s helping the lobbyists.”"

3/17/2011 9:35:33 PM

This one's all opinion, but awesome.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262335/president-hamlet-victor-hanson

Quote :

"President Hamlet Thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them. More than 400 years ago, William Shakespeare wrote a riveting tragedy about a young, charismatic Danish prince who vowed to do the right thing in avenging his murdered father. That soon proved easier said than done. As a result, Hamlet couldn’t quite ever act in time — given all the ambiguities that such a sensitive prince first had to sort out. In the meantime, a lot of bodies piled up through his indecision and hesitancy. President Obama wanted to give us all universal health care. But then he discovered that the country was broke and that most people did not like his massive federal takeover. So we got both his health care and, so far, more than 1,000 exemptions from his landmark plan for unions, corporations, and entire states. The president wished to please his liberal supporters with more government redistributive programs and higher taxes on the wealthy. But such entitlements cost lots of money — more than $4 trillion in new borrowing in just three years – and scare to death the job-creating private sector. So the president not only borrows at record levels, but also sets up a commission to warn us that his borrowing will soon bankrupt the country. He damns the “fat-cat bankers” and the rich who “at some point” have made enough money, even as he courts them for campaign donations and begs their companies to start hiring new employees. Obama warned us that we could not drill our way out of the ongoing gas crisis and needed instead to develop new green energy. As proof, he borrowed billions to promote wind and solar power, and stopped most new leases for fossil-fuel exploration in Alaska, the west, and offshore. But it turned out that we still need lots of oil as gas nears $4 a gallon. So the president brags that America is now pumping more oil under his green administration than ever before — but neglects to mention that this is true only because Presidents Clinton and Bush long ago approved the sort of oil leases that Obama had rejected. President Obama wanted so much to discontinue George W. Bush’s war on terror that he banned the phrase “war on terror” altogether. He apologized to the Muslim world, promised to “reset” our foreign policy, and vowed to close Guantanamo Bay and stop the other nasty Bush antiterrorism protocols. But our “to be or not to be” Hamlet also wanted to continue to keep the country safe from another 9/11-style terrorist attack, so he kept Guantanamo open, quadrupled the number of Predator drone attacks, and either preserved or expanded all the Bush protocols that he had once derided. Abroad, a new multilateral Obama wished to act only in concert with the United Nations and our allies. He vowed to respect the sovereignty of other countries and not “meddle” in their affairs by imposing American values. And yet the president also embraced eternal and universal human rights and wanted the United States to be on the right side of history. So he criticized our intervention to foster democracy in Iraq even as his vice president praised it. We surged in Afghanistan even as we posted deadlines to leave. We promised not to meddle to support Iranian protestors, and to meddle to support Egyptian protestors. Hosni Mubarak was a dictator and was not a dictator, who had to leave yesterday, today, or maybe tomorrow. The situation in Libya is deemed “unacceptable,” but how exactly it could be made acceptable is never spelled out. Intervening there to support rebels is said to be good; but apparently so is supporting Saudi troops intervening in Bahrain to put down rebels and protect the status quo. Middle East strongmen, the president tells us, are cruel and must leave. But the why and how of it all are also never stated. Are they supposed to flee only when protests reach a critical mass? In Egypt and Tunisia, but not in Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran? President Obama has spent most of his life either in, or teaching, school — or making laws that he was not responsible for enforcing. His hope-and-change speeches were as moving in spirit as they were lacking in details. But now Obama is chief executive, and learning, as did Prince Hamlet, that thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them — a sort of Shakespearean “prison” where “there is nothing either good or bad.” Worrying about pleasing everyone ensures pleasing no one. Once again such “conscience does make cowards of us all.” Hamlets, past and present, are as admirable in theory as they are fickle — and often dangerous — in fact."

3/17/2011 9:42:44 PM

29-3 in his NCAA tournament picks over the first two days

pretty damn credible

3/19/2011 10:37:59 AM

If only he knew as much about basic economics as he did college basketball.

3/19/2011 10:52:26 AM

^Like your boy McCain knows two shits about economics......if your boy was president, we would of invaded both Iran and Libya by now.....he could care less about the economy.....I think Obama is doing a good job all things considered.


Have you ordered either your Palin '12 or Paul '12 bumper sticker yet?

3/19/2011 3:40:24 PM

Ahahaha. YES, MY BOY MCCAIN. We agree on a lot of the issues, bro.

Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are nothing alike. You should come out to see Ron Paul speak at the McKimmon center on Monday, February 28th at 7:00 PM. No tickets required - it's completely free. Clearly, you haven't actually listened to him before. I dare you to sit through his speech and compare him to Palin again.

[Edited on March 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/19/2011 3:44:36 PM

I was really hoping the president would keep us out of Libya

3/19/2011 4:50:15 PM

Quote :

"Like your boy McCain knows two shits about economics......if your boy was president, we would of invaded both Iran and Libya by now.....he could care less about the economy.....I think Obama is doing a good job all things considered."

This has to be one of the worst statements I have ever seen from someone who graduated college.

You should stop posting in TSB now, as this is a place for enlightened and well-educated people to express their thoughts coherently.

And with that, my time in TSB must also come to an end.

3/19/2011 6:59:42 PM

3/20/2011 3:30:46 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=2&hpw

Quote :

"Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton WASHINGTON — In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya. Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention. Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day. On Thursday, during an hour-and-a -half meeting, Mr. Obama signed off on allowing American pilots to join Europeans and Arabs in military strikes against the Libyan government. The president had a caveat, though. The American involvement in military action in Libya should be limited — no ground troops — and finite. “Days, not weeks,” a senior White House official recalled him saying. The shift in the administration’s position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill “many thousands,” as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday. The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret. Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, one of the early advocates for military action in Libya, described the debate within the administration as “healthy.” He said that “the memory of Rwanda, alongside Iraq in ’91, made it clear” that the United States needed to act but needed international support. In joining Ms. Rice and Ms. Power, Mrs. Clinton made an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution. Libya was not vital to American national security interests, the men argued, and Mr. Brennan worried that the Libyan rebels remained largely unknown to American officials, and could have ties to Al Qaeda. The administration’s shift also became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations against one of their own. “Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This “puts the United States in a much stronger position because they’ve got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war.” Ever since the democracy protests in the region began three months ago, the Obama administration has struggled to balance America’s national security interests against support for democratic principles, a struggle that has left Mr. Obama subject to criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. And by taking a case-by-case approach — quickly embracing protesters in Tunisia, eventually coming around to fully endorse their cause in Egypt, but backing the rulers in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen — the administration at times has appeared inconsistent. While calling for Colonel Qaddafi’s ouster, administration officials indicated Mr. Obama was more concerned with unfolding events in Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt than with removing the Libyan leader. There was high drama right up to the surprising Security Council vote on Thursday night, when the ambassador for South Africa, viewed as critical to getting the nine votes needed to pass the resolution, failed to show up for the final vote, causing Ms. Rice to rush from the chamber in search of him. South Africa and Nigeria — along with Brazil and India — had all initially balked at authorizing force, but administration officials believed they had brought the Africans around. Mr. Obama had already been on the phone pressing President Jacob Zuma of South Africa to support the resolution, White House officials said. Eventually, the South African representative showed up to vote yes, as did the Nigerian representative, giving the United States one vote more than required. Brazil and India, meanwhile, joined Russia, China and Germany in abstaining. The pivotal decision for Mr. Obama came on Tuesday though, after Mrs. Clinton had called from Paris with news that the Arab governments were willing to participate in military action. That would solve one of Mr. Gates’s concerns, that the United States not be viewed on the Arab street as going to war against another Muslim country. Mrs. Clinton “had the proof,” one senior administration official said, “that not only was the Arab League in favor, but that the Emirates were serious about participating.” During a meeting with Mr. Obama and his top national security aides — Ms. Rice was on video teleconference from New York; Mrs. Clinton from Paris — Ms. Rice sought to allay Mr. Gates’s concern that a no-fly zone by itself would not be enough to halt Colonel Qaddafi’s progress, recalled officials attending the meeting. “Susan basically said that it was possible to get a tougher resolution” that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the east, administration official said. “That was the turning point” for Mr. Obama, the official said. The president was scheduled to go to a dinner with military veterans that night; he told his aides to draw up military plans. And he instructed Ms. Rice to move forward with a broader resolution at the Security Council. She already had one ready — drawn up the week before, just in case, officials said. Besides asking for an expanded military campaign, Ms. Rice loaded up the resolution with other items on the American wish list, including the authorization to use force to back an arms embargo against Libya. “We knew it would be a heavy lift to get any resolution through; our view was we might as well get as much as we could,” Ms. Rice said in a telephone interview. On Wednesday at the Security Council, Russia put forward a competing resolution, calling for a cease-fire — well short of what the United States wanted. But the French, who had been trying to get a straight no-fly resolution through, switched to back the tougher American wording. And they “put it in blue” ink — U.N. code for calling for a vote. “It was a brilliant tactical move,” an American official said. “They hijacked the text, which means it could be called to a vote at any time.” On Thursday, the South Africans, Nigerians, Portuguese and Bosnians — all of them question marks — said they would support the tougher resolution. Even after getting the Security Council endorsement, Mr. Obama made clear that the military action would be an international effort. “The change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power,” the president told reporters at the White House on Friday. “Ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab world.”"

3/20/2011 10:00:15 AM

Quote :

"Q. Mr. President, do you have any solid evidence that Qadhafi is responsible for the recent acts of terrorism? And if you are contemplating major retaliation, won't you be killing a lot of innocent people? I'd like to follow up. The President. Helen, we have considerable evidence, over quite a long period of time, that Qadhafi has been quite outspoken about his participation in urging on and supporting terrorist acts—a kind of warfare, as he has called it. Right now, however, I can't answer you specifically on this other, because we're continuing with our intelligence work and gathering evidence on these most recent attacks, and we're not ready yet to speak on that. And any action that we might take would be dependent on what we learn. And so, I can't go further. Q. Mr. President, I know you must have given it a lot of thought, but what do you think is the real reason that Americans are the prime target of terrorism? Could it be our policies? The President. Well, we know that this mad dog of the Middle East has a goal of a world revolution, Moslem fundamentalist revolution, which is targeted on many of his own Arab compatriots. And where we figure in that, I don't know. Maybe we're just the enemy because—it's a little like climbing Mount Everest—because we're here. But there's no question but that he has singled us out more and more for attack, and we're aware of that. As I say, we're gathering evidence as fast as we can. Q. Mr. President, Colonel Qadhafi threatened today to escalate the violence against American civilians and military targets throughout the world if his country is attacked. Does he have the ability to strike here on American soft? The President. Well, we know that there are a number of his countrymen in this country. He has even suggested that he could call upon people to do that. And we certainly do not overlook that possibility. We're going to be on the alert and on guard for anything he might do. He has threatened repeatedly, and recently, that he will bring that kind of warfare to our shores, directly here. Of course, it's kind of hard to keep up with him, because just a short time after this recent TWA explosion, he went on the air to state that this was an attack on innocent civilians and pure terrorism, and he wouldn't have anything to do with that. That's the same man that referred to the slaughter of the innocents in Rome and Vienna airports as a noble act. So, I don't know whether you count on what he says for your real information. I think you just ignore that and go looking for facts. "

[Edited on March 20, 2011 at 10:54 AM. Reason : +]

3/20/2011 10:37:09 AM

^Im curious did Qadhafi bomb another airliner with americans onboard im not aware of?

3/20/2011 10:57:36 AM

so curious, they'd call you whiskers!

i'm just posting how a REAL president responded to Crazy Q

[Edited on March 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2011 11:06:13 AM

Quote :

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

- Barack Obama (the candidate)

3/20/2011 11:45:10 AM

It seems to be an economic threat, which is why I am torn; on one hand, I worry about a prolonged military engagement there, on the other, this is having a much larger economic impact than it should, the Libyan government is burning our money.

3/20/2011 2:19:22 PM

Finally stepping up to the plate in Libya jesus he got the sand out of his vagina.

Who would have ever thought Hussein Obama would lead an attack against a Muslim leader.


Anyway, this in all honesty may be the first thing Obama has done his entire presidency that I agree with. Although most of his policies have been clearly incorrect they weren't grey area like this one so there hasn't been much to choose from.

For the record I was anti-Iraq but pro-Afghanistan.

And actually I got my Ron Paul bumper sticker already but I havent put it on my car yet because I hate going outside with all the pollen.

3/20/2011 3:57:07 PM

Quote :

"Hussein Obama"

Jesus, you sound like Bill Cunningham.

3/20/2011 4:19:21 PM

im glad he's letting the Frenchies, Italians, and whomever else in Europe lead the military action on this.

3/20/2011 4:43:47 PM

theres a lot to why he is, politically

but right now our budgets and ability to wage this action on libya is very small. a large portion of our forces arent available to be sent. the 26th expeditionary force's ships are already over near libya and the marines attached to it are in afghanistan. so extra marines had to be sent over there just incase they had to supply force or aid to libya.

we are stretched and so im sure the UN and the USA agreed that yes since we basically are the ones doing 90 percent of the work in afg. that we would only supply a small portion of what is needed in libya

3/20/2011 5:13:56 PM

^^^^Your rationale is you hate going outside because of all the pollen? Are you a shut in or something? Seriously, that's a weak excuse.

Not that you even NEED an excuse. I mean, it can just be, "I'll put it on when I get around to it," but the phrasing on that makes it seem like you've got it next to the door waiting and you just can't because there's a pollen storm outside.

[Edited on March 20, 2011 at 5:14 PM. Reason : vc]

3/20/2011 5:14:07 PM

Quote :

"It seems to be an economic threat"

How so? If you are thinking oil, the Saudis have said they can cover the 2% world supply Libya produces. Im not sure we get any oil from Libya.

3/20/2011 5:23:37 PM

well im lazy and ever since i got back from my 11 day spring break trip ive been sick with allergies on top of it.

and ive got to take my peter schiff bumper sticker off and so i need to google to see what the best way to do that is before i put the ron paul on.

3/20/2011 5:53:43 PM

^any kind of alcohol or oil should help remove it cleanly

Quote :

"How so? If you are thinking oil, the Saudis have said they can cover the 2% world supply Libya produces. Im not sure we get any oil from Libya."

It's the classic keynesian beauty contest, it's more about what people think other people will think, or how people think other people will think other people will think, etc.

3/20/2011 6:05:17 PM

I wonder how many lives could have been saved if President Obama would have temporarily rescinded Part 2.11 of Executive Order 12333, which says,

Quote :

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

.

Given Gaddafi's ties to terrorism (Lockerbie Bombing, assassinations of critics, etc.) and legal memos interpreting E.O. 12333 (both for President Clinton in 1998 for Saddam Hussein and for President Bush in 2001 for al Qaeda), I think the President could have targeted Gaddafi himself and anyone who could have commanded the Libyan Army. Would have saved a bunch of lives.

That is, if we were going to get involved in the first place.

3/20/2011 9:02:28 PM

Quote :

"You should come out to see Ron Paul speak at the McKimmon center on Monday, February 28th at 7:00 PM. No tickets required - it's completely free. Clearly, you haven't actually listened to him before. I dare you to sit through his speech and compare him to Palin again. "

Whoops, that's March 28th.

3/20/2011 9:18:17 PM

He's done really well. Let the fearless Frenchies take the charge on Libya and feel important for once. I'll gladly watch as we lob unstoppable Tomahawks from 300 miles off-shore.

3/21/2011 2:24:36 AM

The people attempting to draw an equivalency between Libya and Iraq are looking pretty darned silly.

3/21/2011 8:34:00 AM

one tomahawk costs $600,000. just one missile would buy my friends and i enough weed to set us for life.

3/21/2011 9:15:26 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Barack Obama (the candidate) "

UN stands for UNilateral

3/21/2011 10:03:09 AM

He was speaking, at the time, about acting without the consent of congress.

3/21/2011 10:59:19 AM

^did our congress issue a declaration of war? I missed that

3/21/2011 11:12:48 AM