Except we ended DADT, and DOMA and are well on our way to becoming a majority union of SSM.

Yes, there are far too many US politicians who will gladly cherry-pick data from various bibles to confirm their twisted definitions of the religion they prescribe to, but sweeping generalizations like "an American politician" are completely uncalled for any many "American politicians" may warrant some congratulatory statements.

Us in the states aren't completely enlightened yet, but to deny our progress could come off as condescending and irrational.

BTW, Bush ended Iraq, not Obama. We're still in recession, and Obama did very little for repealing don't ask don't tell.
Only after gay people were chaining themselves to the white house would Obama even consider signing the bill repealing DADT.

Yep, change happened in the Auto Industry:

"As part of the 2009 restructuring of GM, the Obama administration insisted that “innovative labor agreements” be put in place at factories building small cars. The UAW pushed through, without a vote by local union members, a provision that allowed 40 percent of the workers at Lake Orion to be paid tier-two wages. The deal also opened the door to hundreds of even lower paid contractors."

Just how much are those tier two and three wages? I hear you ask.

"Not only has the UAW sanctioned second-tier wages of $16 to $19 an hour—little more than half of what traditional workers earn. It has also opened the door to a third tier of contract workers who earn as little as $9 an hour, with no medical or retirement benefits."

and

"In the present situation, however, rather than defending workers, the UAW is functioning as a cheap labor contractor. So thoroughly has the UAW reduced wages that American automakers are now boasting they can produce cars as profitably in the US as in Mexico, China or other low-wage countries."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/linc-d14.shtml

Depression averted: To an extent this is true, however it was averted without fixing the mechanisms by which it happened in the first place, and America is on the path to bankruptcy at the rate it is accumulating debt. In the short term you can fix just about any economic problem you want by printing and borrowing money, but in the long term you need to have a way of repaying your debt, I'm not aware of such a plan.

Iraq war ended: His promise was that ending the Iraq war would be the first thing he would do as president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g
And while the official war is now over, the US of A has an embassy in Iraq the size of the Vatican city, costing ~$3.8 billion this year (the most expensive in the world) and they still have around 16,000 people involved in the 'diplomatic effort', the majority of which are private security contractors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/#.TytXO1z9PUc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-usa-diplomats-idUSTRE7BH04B20111218

Looking at the bigger picture, the total defense budget, magically, despite the 'end of the Iraq war' is going to remain at similar levels, with projected spending of just under $700 billion for the next 4 years. This is of course because while you shrink your Iraq footprint, you increase it in other areas such as the Asia-Pacific.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1103bm47s1.pdf

This also doesn't take into account the spending that makes it's way to the military through other channels such as emergency funds, special projects etc. In fact more than half of every tax dollar is currently going towards military expenditure according to this:
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going-to-the-military

Bin Laden dead: apparently, not really worthwhile debating this as afaik there is no proof he's been killed and no proof he wasn't.

Same sex marriage: The DADT repeal was a good change, however at the Federal level same-sex marriage is still not recognized, not that I can criticize this, it's the same in Australia.

Anyway, that's my 2c, as usual, feel free to criticize.

Like Matthews in this interview, I don't think it is necessary to get into those questionable incidents to that speak to Paul's motives. His policies in this area speak for themselves, and can't stand the light of day.

It is so striking how this man, who is so clear and succinct on matters of foreign policy and even some domestic issues (like drug laws in the beginning of the clip), can lapse into an indecipherable mess when confronted by his own positions on civil rights.

And I think that those particular views on civil rights have a huge following. Clearly it didn't hurt his son to have them.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).
He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/articl
e/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.
Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).

He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.

Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

Wow, was that pathetic. Here's a tip to the Obama campaign trying to reframe his failure... CUE CARDS GO UNDER THE CAMERA SO HE ISN'T STARING OFF THE SCREEN WHEN HE READS YOUR TALKING POINTS.

So, this video pretty much says the only thing Obama has done is a stupid Health Insurance reform that benefits no one but Insurance companies (his campaign contributors) and a few million people not currently covered, and it might kick in around three years from now. Bravo.

Appointed someone to Supreme Court, OMG!!!! Let's make a statue.

Actually let Congress do something about DADT since he failed to act. Wow, he didn't veto it. Bravo. (We'll pretend we don't realize he could have ended it any any time immediately with Executive Order)


In the end his only argument for Obama is that he doesn't like Nader (who would enact a semblance of Progressive change) and GOP candidates are bad. Wow, GLOWING RECOMMENDATION!!

Even Obama's re-election campaign can only muster this lame attempt at viral endorsements. The guy sounds like he is defending a creepy uncle with the enthusiasm of a funeral director.

notadupe of http://videosift.com/video/Coulter-wants-DADT-for-all-of-Society

That video is much shorter and was posted first.

>> ^peggedbea:

I heard and understood what he said. but i am so upset with him that it all sounds like lip service.
i feel like maybe once, years ago, there was an obama with integrity. one who believed the shit he said. i dont think that's the guy we voted into office though. the guy in the office appears to be some kind of corporatist puppet who gives a really good speech every once in a while. whos really good at pretending that "the opposition" just outsmarted him or are too powerful to be beat.

I guess I give him more credit. He's no FDR, but he's as left-wing of a President as we've had since Jimmy Carter.

I'm not as starry-eyed about him as I once was, but I think people on the left have let the corporate media brainwash them a bit too much with the "Obama = fail" meme.

Every victory he's had gets turned into "it was a failure because it should've been a bigger and better victory". Every real failure gets turned into intentional betrayal of principle.

I always get suspicious about only ever hearing one conclusion from people. I mean, for fuck's sake, liberals occasionally found some reason to applaud even Bush. Not so with Obama. Everything he does is apparently wrong, even when he succeeds in implementing some major policy goal. Now it seems that even an expression of sympathy for the Occupy movement in a high-visibility TV interview ticks people off.

I guess I just don't get it. I see a guy who hasn't been the Knight in Shining Armor we all wanted him to be, but he's made quite a lot of forward progress on things like health care reform, repealing DADT, even pulling out of Iraq.

Like I said, he's no FDR, but he's definitely on our side!

I think Obama's message of unity and equality (gay rights/DADT) was the message of his election campaign. Fiscal policy didn't really make the news until the Wall Street collapse, as Bush's wars and tax cuts heaped layers of fat onto the tub of lard that is the federal debt. I don't think he's gone any further left.

At the same time, I don't think he's gone to the right. As the prospect of unifying the house became more and more unlikely, with Dem's giving up almost every concession the Rep's wanted in the debt bill it's easy to conclude that he's shifted to the right. I don't think it's a matter of him selling out to the Rep's. I think it's the crappy hand he was dealt and forced to play with, while keeping his face fearless and confident for his people.

I think it's a symptom of a broken system, and this is what the OWS movement is all about.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^volumptuous:
Obama's gone further to the left? HAHAHAHAHAH. Who is he, Newt Gingrich?

Yeah, that's a confusing statement. Obama is practically a Republican at this point.

@ghark there's a lot of what you're saying that I agree with, but still you've got this false equivalency thing going. Democrats are not winning the fight against corporate plutocracy. That is not the same thing as fighting for corporate plutocracy.

Equating the two doesn't help you get anywhere in changing the political landscape, it just has the effect of demoralizing people sympathetic to your cause, and getting them to drop out of the political process entirely.

Now one can hypothesize that the Democrats aren't winning because they're taking a dive. But that flies in the face of the facts. They passed HCR, bank regulation, repeal of DADT, etc. You seem to be buying into the line that HCR is some victory for the corporations, or that Dodd-Frank made the banks stronger, and that nobody at all in Washington is doing anything worth praising. That's just not true. Those are right-wing talking points. That's what Republicans want people to believe.

I agree that you shouldn't think that voting for Democrats means you can sit back, and they'll just fix everything for you. No, if you want to really make some sweeping changes, you need to form a broad-based political movement that changes the minds and mood of the public. You need a movement that keeps Democrats on the straight and narrow, and puts pressure on Republicans to mend their ways.

I hope Occupy Wall Street will be that kind of movement. I certainly think they've had a positive effect so far.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and only a fool expects any human to hang up his beliefs entirely when doing a job, but the left is so used to the Kenyawaiian's everyday overstepping his authority, they worry others in the Oval Office may do so. 'President Cain' cannot by himself repeal anything.

And DOMA is not unconstitutional.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I heard it. And I snorted in disbelief and derision.
Didn't you just hear him say that he would reinstate DADT? So his religious viewpoint is not divorced from his potential actions as a president. DOMA would not be repealed under his watch, and that is failing on constitutional grounds already.
So yeah. We heard it. We laughed.
>> ^quantumushroom:
BTW did anyone but me listen to the end of the vid when Cain stated his personal beliefs are overridden by the limiting powers of the Constitution?

Oh, I heard it. And I snorted in disbelief and derision.

Didn't you just hear him say that he would reinstate DADT? So his religious viewpoint is not divorced from his potential actions as a president. DOMA would not be repealed under his watch, and that is failing on constitutional grounds already.

So yeah. We heard it. We laughed.

>> ^quantumushroom:

BTW did anyone but me listen to the end of the vid when Cain stated his personal beliefs are overridden by the limiting powers of the Constitution?

I love how he says "Sex shouldn't be an issue" then follows it with "let's reinstate DADT so we can kick gay people out for having it"

I don't get it. I thought DADT was basically a way of saying "you can be in the military as long as you don't say you're gay"?

Ironically, the mix of lube and faecal matter is right on this one. If you want to serve your country, your sexual orientation shouldn't matter. However, that not what he means when he says that. He means "it doesn't matter, as long as you're straight"