Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Poor Newt Gingrich. Hopefully he’s out of traction now and fully recovered from the self-inflicted whiplash stemming from his conflicting views of what the U.S. military role should be in Libya. It sure was spectacular to see Newt, as he vies for his party’s nomination to challenge the president, twisted in knots as he tried to take both sides of the debate. You see, Newt was for the U.S. involvement in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya before he was against it. Newt’s embarrassing contortions exposed the fallacy of the right’s obscene obsession with undermining the president and hoping for his (and the country’s) failure at every turn. It demonstrated the shortcomings of the “Agenda of No” practiced by Newt and his Newtonian lemmings in Congress. And it revealed that the Republican’s “no reason” policy on Libya — meaning it isn’t based in reason — ultimately will fail as the president continues to outline his vision and his authority.<< <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/152255-congressional-gops-no-reason-zone-over-libya" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...er-libya</a> This is what the GOP has been reduced to. They're so stuck on making Obama wrong about everything and hoping he will fail, that even when he does exactly what they wanted him to do, they'll willingly flip flop and pretend they never wanted that. Crazy times we live in, folks.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Rachel Maddow did a really good bit on Newt's flip flopping. You should look it up it is hilarious in a sad, pathetic way. I would post a link but I am posting this from my phone so I can't right now.
Originally Posted By gadzuux What's even more pathetic is that this kind of glaringly obvious flip-flopping and undermining won't make a dent with people inclined to vote republican. There is no accountability among this crowd - their candidates can do anything and say anything, as long as it's in opposition to the president. Remember, this is the same guy who was preaching about the sanctity of marriage while cheating on his second wife who was hospitalized with cancer. But that doesn't matter with the 'moral majority' types because he was doing it in the name of tearing down a president, and that's fine with them. Newt doesn't care about humanitarian efforts to saves the lives of innocents in Libya, or anywhere else. Newt's motives are always the same thing - Newt. As apparent as this is, republicans don't see it. That's because their ideology - whatever it is - trumps all reason and common sense. And that's what makes a republican. Nevermind that the biggest corporations in the world (BofA, GE) are bilking the public, accepting millions in government money, posting record profits in the billions, and paying zero taxes, the "problem" is those fatcat teachers and nurses and bus drivers. Trump is now making noises about running for president. The FIRST THING outta the chutes he brings up the birth certificate. Now, does the Donald really believe that Obama is a socialist muslim kenyan usurper? Of course not - but he's more than willing to pander to the ignorance of the republican base. Obviously he feels that's what he must do to gain traction with this part of the electorate. And that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about republican politicians and voters both - the politicians are pandering liars completely willing to surrender their own integrity and dignity, and the voters are nothing more than fearful ignorant fools waiting to be played like a fiddle. Sad indeed.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >And that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about republican politicians and voters both - the politicians are pandering liars completely willing to surrender their own integrity and dignity, and the voters are nothing more than fearful ignorant fools waiting to be played like a fiddle< I'm in angry liberal mode today because of this. I got into an argument today with some military grunts in my class who still believe Iraq had WMDs.
Originally Posted By alexbook Of course, Obama flip-flopped on this, too. He and Gingrich make a nice pair. One of the reasons I considered supporting Obama, despite his lukewarm stances on many liberal issues, was his repeated criticism of presidential actions that go beyond the office's constitutional authority Turns out he's only opposed to them when he's not president. From a 2007 interview with Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe: >>Savage asked Obama, "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"<< >>Obama said, "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." He added, "As commander-in-chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."<< <a href="http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/barack-obama/barack-obamas-libya-intervention-flip-flop-what-he/" target="_blank">http://politifact.com/truth-o-...what-he/</a>
Originally Posted By Tony C This sounds like a case of: Wabbit Season Duck Season Wabbit Season Duck Season Duck Season DUCK SEASON FIRE!!!!
Originally Posted By Tony C But Alex does have point there have been times when I've wondered if this Presidency has just been an extention of the last one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What killed me about Trump was the complete lack of logic. He said it was "suspect" that "no doctor" can remember delivering Obama in Hawaii. Considering that happened about 50 years ago, and the delivering doc might have been, say, 40 or so, there's a fairly good chance he's not even alive any more. Then, when told that the current HI governor, then a friend of Obsma's mom, remembers his birth, Trump says that's hard to believe and the guv should be "investigated " So... a guy who remembers his personal friend having her first child... That's hard to believe. But that some 90 year old doc who delivered hundreds of babies can't be found who remembers this birth (which at the time would have been unremarkable...) that raises questions?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 But Alex does have point there have been times when I've wondered if this Presidency has just been an extention of the last one ---- oh it's definitely different- but there are likely far more similarities than many of his supporters like- or like to admit. as I told everyone- this is a Chicago politician- plain and simple..you get told one thing but once in office all bets are off. The main difference between Obama and W-- Barack is a much smarter man and can actually try and talk his way out of things, instead of just digging a deeper ditch
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm as critical of Obama as anyone in those areas where he's too similar to Bush (Guantanamo, for example) but let's not overlook the fact that Libya is currently nothing like Iraq.
