Comments on: Dana Milbank and the Church of Obama http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/12/07/dana-milbank-and-the-church-of-obama/ The national media watch group Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:31:47 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: December 2009 « Questionable Content http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/12/07/dana-milbank-and-the-church-of-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-39316 December 2009 « Questionable Content Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:37:23 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13422#comment-39316 [...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/12/07/dana-milbank-and-the-church-of-obama/ . [...] [...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/12/07/dana-milbank-and-the-church-of-obama/ . [...]

]]> By: frank67 http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/12/07/dana-milbank-and-the-church-of-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-10870 frank67 Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:07:34 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13422#comment-10870 Are any of you old enough to remember President Eisenhower's warning about the danger of the "Military Industrial {Congrssional} complex. Of course the Congressional reference was left out of the "sanitized" version. But we've been getting deeper an deeper into "wars" foisted upon us by the Executive. If you have ever read your United States Constitution, you'll see that ONLY the Legislative branch (Congress) can declare war. When was the last time Congress declared war? WWII. Are any of you old enough to remember President Eisenhower's warning about the danger of the "Military Industrial {Congrssional} complex. Of course the Congressional reference was left out of the "sanitized" version.
But we've been getting deeper an deeper into "wars" foisted upon us by the Executive. If you have ever read your United States Constitution, you'll see that ONLY the Legislative branch (Congress) can declare war. When was the last time Congress declared war? WWII.

]]> By: Geoff http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/12/07/dana-milbank-and-the-church-of-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-10866 Geoff Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:36:16 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13422#comment-10866 To Regina, a lot of people "demonizing Obama" (and I would say demonizing is a stretch, "criticizing"is much more accurate), HAVE offered their idea of a "solution" in Afghanistan. The solution is to begin to withdraw and leave as quickly as is logistically possible. Will what happens after that be good? No, but things have not been "good" in Afghanistan in a long time, and the U.S. military isn't going to change that anymore than the Soviets did or the British before them. There are no good options in Afghanistan (on that we agree), but recognizing that and taking the least bad one (extricating ourselves from a quagmire) is the approach that makes the most sense. There are a lot of very smart people who feel that way, and saying that all they are doing is "sitting back and bitching" suggests that you are not even remotely engaged with the relevant arguments (if you want a quick primer, the documentary "Rethinking Afghanistan" does a good job summarizing some of the key anti-war arguments, and includes thoughts from a lot of people who know what they are talking about). Finally a lot of folks who oppose Obama's policies (including me, for what it's worth) are fairly aware of the "real conditions on the ground," certainly to the point where they know that citizens of Afghanistan are called "Afghans," not "Afghanis." Perhaps you are the one who needs to do a little less bitching and little more reading. To Regina, a lot of people "demonizing Obama" (and I would say demonizing is a stretch, "criticizing"is much more accurate), HAVE offered their idea of a "solution" in Afghanistan. The solution is to begin to withdraw and leave as quickly as is logistically possible. Will what happens after that be good? No, but things have not been "good" in Afghanistan in a long time, and the U.S. military isn't going to change that anymore than the Soviets did or the British before them. There are no good options in Afghanistan (on that we agree), but recognizing that and taking the least bad one (extricating ourselves from a quagmire) is the approach that makes the most sense. There are a lot of very smart people who feel that way, and saying that all they are doing is "sitting back and bitching" suggests that you are not even remotely engaged with the relevant arguments (if you want a quick primer, the documentary "Rethinking Afghanistan" does a good job summarizing some of the key anti-war arguments, and includes thoughts from a lot of people who know what they are talking about).

Finally a lot of folks who oppose Obama's policies (including me, for what it's worth) are fairly aware of the "real conditions on the ground," certainly to the point where they know that citizens of Afghanistan are called "Afghans," not "Afghanis." Perhaps you are the one who needs to do a little less bitching and little more reading.

]]> By: bobbler (freethought society) http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/12/07/dana-milbank-and-the-church-of-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-10861 bobbler (freethought society) Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:42:44 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13422#comment-10861 LIBERALS, and Obama? I had a hard time following FAIR's article (sorry FAIR; but I love you guys).. See if you all can follow this: Liberals are not happy with Obama.. And I dont mean liberals in the sense of "anyone who is not a far RR republican." Rather I mean atual liberals (not happy at all).. We liberals helped elect Obama mainly out of fear (fear of getting a corporate puppet into the white house.. IE: a more controllable puppet than Obama at least).. Now the fear is Obama will be another Bill Clinton; doing conservative things (although not so extreme as the far right), but being hated by the right for six degrees of seperation from the right.. The problem liberals have is because there are much more than 6 degrees of seperation.. Example: health care is now screwed up; making single payer the "catch all" that will catch the desperate poor and more expensive cases his corporate partners dont want to have to pay for (translated; we taxpayers will help out the CEO's already making billions; because they collect money for coverage, but turn expensive cases over to us to pay for).. bobbler LIBERALS, and Obama?

I had a hard time following FAIR's article (sorry FAIR; but I love you guys)..
See if you all can follow this:

Liberals are not happy with Obama.. And I dont mean liberals in the sense of "anyone who is not a far RR republican." Rather I mean atual liberals (not happy at all)..

We liberals helped elect Obama mainly out of fear (fear of getting a corporate puppet into the white house.. IE: a more controllable puppet than Obama at least)..

Now the fear is Obama will be another Bill Clinton; doing conservative things (although not so extreme as the far right), but being hated by the right for six degrees of seperation from the right..

The problem liberals have is because there are much more than 6 degrees of seperation..

Example: health care is now screwed up; making single payer the "catch all" that will catch the desperate poor and more expensive cases his corporate partners dont want to have to pay for (translated; we taxpayers will help out the CEO's already making billions; because they collect money for coverage, but turn expensive cases over to us to pay for)..

bobbler

]]>