General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy didn't Obama cancel his summit with Putin over their new anti-gay laws and policies?
Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)
on edit: Actually, it appears it was a factor, or as it has been pointed out to me in this thread, he cited it as a reason to cancel the summit.
That's good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-cancels-meeting-with-vladimir-putin-criticizes-russian-anti-gay-legislation/2013/08/07/da43f24a-ff98-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html
Obama cancels meeting with Vladimir Putin, criticizes Russian anti-gay legislation
Written by Max Ehrenfreund
Wednesday, August 7, 1:59 PM
E-mail the writer
President Obama has canceled a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Russia’s decision to give temporary asylum to former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden has exacerbated tensions with the United States over a number of issues:
“Following a careful review begun in July, we have reached the conclusion that there is not enough recent progress in our bilateral agenda with Russia to hold a U.S.-Russia Summit in early September,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.
Carney cited a “lack of progress” with Russia over the past 12 months on a broad range of issues including missile defense and arms control, trade and commercial relations, global security and human rights and civil society issues. Carney added that Russia’s “disappointing decision” last week to grant Snowden temporary asylum, allowing him to live and work in Russia for up to a year, was also a factor.
...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)a working relationship with a country in the first place.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I support President Obama, but this is some bullshit.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As Snowden has virtually zero of an asylum case. Unless Russia's asylum law is that anyone who faces charges in another country can have it. And it's not, I checked it once and it's like ours.
Koios
(154 posts)... Obama is not as gay-equality-minded as we might like to think. DADT pretty much ended on its own. DOMA, too, ended on its own, with only Obama saying he'd not have Justice defend the law.
And he was late to the party supporting full marriage rights, saying instead he only supported civil unions.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Yup. If McCain or Romney won, they would have signed a repeal of DADT just like Obama did.
How's that alternate reality bubble you're living in? Is it fun?
Koios
(154 posts)... in which calling for an internal study by the military to review the policy is not repealing is as promised by ... OBAMA!!! That got Obama votes that did not go to McCain nor Romney since they're pinheads.
Obama should have done better ... i.e., what he said he would do.
Now then, what's your reality like?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Obama signs repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama signed a landmark law Wednesday repealing the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military, fulfilling one of his major campaign pledges and casting the issue as a matter of civil rights long denied.
"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love," Obama said.
A beaming Obama signed the bill at the Interior Department, a location chosen to accommodate a larger than normal audience that cheered, chanted and applauded throughout the ceremony.
DADT repeal timeline still uncertain
"This is a good day," a beaming Obama said. "This is a very good day."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40777922/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-signs-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/#.UgLF4j8edOI
According to you, the law ended on its own. So that means McCain or Romney would have also signed the repeal of DADT.
Koios
(154 posts)Signing a bill is not signing an executive order, and supports my criticism that Obama let it happen on it own. Ditto on DOMA.
(fun tidbit: http://www.keennewsservice.com/2012/04/18/rejecting-an-executive-order-is-it-the-dadt-repeal-strategy-or-a-campaign-decision/)
So the parallel realities, are:
1. What Obama promises in his campaigns
2. What Obama does as president
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Unless there is a congressional override which would have never happened.
You obviously failed political science. You have no idea how the legislative process works.
Koios
(154 posts)Letting others do the heavy lifting insulates him, politically. He was more interested in his job, than the jobs of trained military being rejected, including pilots we spent millions training, for something as stupid as their sexual orientation.
And of course, despite Jesus Christ approval, post Nov '08, and a landslide Electoral College win, giving him the House and a Super Majority Senate, instead of a first 100 days to rival LBJ, he spent more time elevating Geithner and sidelining liberal economists, to give Wall Street a bailout with ZERO strings attached, and failed to do a modicum of the stuff our overwhelming support mandated, unambiguously, giving him carte blanche to do immediately all that he promised, and then some.
History will remember it as perhaps the most-squandered opportunity in our country's history.
And as one who votes for progressive ideals (POLICY!) and not some center-right schmuck in liberal drag (Obama), suffice it to say, I am utterly disgusted with President Obama, and yearn for an actual progressive to be elected in 2016 -- and Obama can go hog wild filling his library with Freidman-esque, supply-side, laissez-faire nonsense books, or pound nails for Habitat, or fish off a damn pier. I do not care which.
K?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...or you just don't care because you'd rather foul up the internet with a foamy mouthed, spittle filled rant to shit all over Barack Obama, who has done more for gay rights than any other President and more than you likely ever will for the whole of your entire life (I know its hard for you to live with that fact, but your going to have to).
No laws get passed without the legislators doing the heavy lifting. They are the ones that have to write the bills and rally together the votes. President's lay out an agenda, but its still up to the 500-some other people who, collectively, have just as much power when it comes to passing laws as the President does.
The President laid out the agenda to repeal DADT. He ordered the studies that were needed to give political cover to Senators on the fence about repeal. He sent the joint chiefs over to capitol hill to lobby for repeal. But most importantly, more important than any other action, he willingly and happily signed the repeal into law. Theres nothing you can do to change that. He DID IT. Deal with it.
And there was no super majority senate for more than a few months. You need to refresh yourself on recent history. Al Franken couldn't take his seat for awhile because of vote recounting. Teddy Kennedy died. Joe Lieberman was involved in the mix (after having campaigned for McCain). And Robert Byrd was in ill health the whole time of the term before he died. This myth that he had this super majority that could ram anything and everything through the Senate is an absolute lie and one you are willingly telling. I wonder what that makes you?
Koios
(154 posts)... one of the perks is "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."
He said, to gay supporters, he'd immediately eliminate DADT if elected. But it was ignored, right up until the campaign of 2012 was looming, at which point, he said no to gay congresspersons who urged he fulfill that promise, and instead, let others fulfill his promise, and then have a nice photo op signing off on what they did, not what he did.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)That would have led to a band aid of a policy that would've taken the pressure off of Congress to get rid of it for real. I'm glad he didn't do that.
"But it was ignored, right up until the campaign of 2012 was looming"
-> More evidence that your knowledge of recent history is flawed. The repeal was passed in 2010. Well before the election in November of 2012. The true fight for repeal began earlier that year in May when the bill was attached to the Defense Authorization bill. Prior to that, Congress and the President has just spent the last year and 4 months dealing with passing the stimulus, passing the healthcare bill, passing finance reform, saving the auto industry, overseeing the winding down in Iraq, etc. Its not like there aren't a whole host of issues facing this country all the time. A year and 4 months is nothing in the grand scheme of time. Within 7 months of the beginning, legislatively, repeal was passed.
Your attitude regarding the time he took getting it done is childish and displays a gross naiveté in regard to expectations and the standard way "stuff" works in the business of governing in this country.
Koios
(154 posts)... my bad. But the criticism of waiting to midterms, which we looking bleak, at best, was the height of political stupidity.
Bear in mind, he went from Jesus Christ-like approval (80%+) to barely above water, since average Americans felt too little had been done, and the recovery was not being felt by average Americans, but instead, Wall Street execs enjoying record bonuses.
Had he used the first 100 days, doing what he promised, not only would we be far better off today, but Pelosi would be the speaker of the house.
Be an apologist if you want. But for me, I find it hard to believe that any who possess core Dem values, can be at happy with what Obama has done, despite being handed the firggin' country on silver platter: EC-landslide; House; Super Majority Senate. How many presidents have ever gotten that? No excuse, IMO.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)He had one all of 2 months and it really wasn't even a super majority because Lieberman and Nelson and various other blue dogs/DINOs were involved. He was never handed the country on a silver platter. He faced major head winds and a united opposition the moment he walked into office.
The question isn't "How many presidents have ever gotten that?". The question is "How many presidents have had to face an opposition who wanted him dead from day 1?".
All kinds of Presidents walk into office with big approval ratings that crash back to reality once the newness has worn off. Again, you lack knowledge of recent history or you choose to ignore it altogether.
So since "waiting till 2012 to repeal DADT" didn't work out for you, now you are changing your argument to "waiting for mid terms". That's a painfully idiotic argument. Every President faces a mid term in their second year. Its the way the calendar works. Your argument is basically saying that if a President doesn't get everything important done in their first year and instead get it done in their second year, they are somehow a failure or stupid. That's an intellectually bankrupt argument that has no merit whatsoever.
Willingly or unwillingly, you are seriously misinformed. Even your entry into this thread when you said "My guess is Obama is not as gay-equality-minded as we might like to think." was written out of a misinformed basis, because the entire premise behind this OP is wrong. The President DID state Russia's new antigay policy as a reason for cancelling this meeting. So you and the OP and everyone else who ran their mouth off about it look rather irrelevant right now.
In re: death-wishes by Congress, I'll pass on debating the absurd. Think that if you wish; I'll not try to get in your way.
In re: Super Majority, that's not a lie, even if technically inaccurate. The Inds needed to bring it to 60 not only caucused with the Dem majority, making it a SUPER MAJORITY, but had teeth, too, which Obama did not leverage: Lieberman chaired his beloved (impacts Israeli policy) Home Land Security Committee; threaten him with losing that chair and he would have come to heel in a nanosecond.
In short, Obama and the Dem leadership brought softballs to a game of hardball, and squandered an historic opportunity. Fact. And if you cannot handle the truth, it is not me lying to you; it's you lying to yourself.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You forget or ignore ....
1) Al Franken wasn't seated until the summer of 2009. Leaving the Dems + Independents at 59 until he was seated.
2) Ted Kennedy died shortly after Franken was seated that same summer. Retirning the total of Dems + Independents to 59.
3) Brown (R) won Kennedy's seat and took office in Jan 2010. Dropping the Dems to 59 again.
When you include the congressional recess that occurred ... the Dems had 60 votes for all of about 75 days, or just over 2 months.
Most Democrats know this math.
Koios
(154 posts)July 7 is when Dems got the 60 votes. Plus they knew well ahead of that that they would, prior to Franken being sworn-in. Even with Kennedy's death, they further knew a Dem would be appointed, which if our leaders had intelligence north of a chicken, they'd have done this:
Get legislation into the pipeline; put it to a vote when they're filibuster-proof, which they knew they would be.
But they didn't. Perhaps if we'd elected higher-intelligence chickens, they could have taken advantage of what the voters handed to them on a silver platter.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Lieberman wasn't afraid to campaign for the other party's candidate, he wouldn't have been afraid to join the Republicans in a filibuster. I don't think holding his chairmanship over his head would've went anywhere. I know Harry Reid and other long serving Dems knew Lieberman better than you do and knew whether or not it was worth it.
It is a lie because you acted like they had it for 2 years and that was clearly never the case.
The word "death" was used metaphorically, that's painfully obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Keep enjoying them tall frosty glasses of koolaid, in the comfortable delusion that being an Obama-apologist and not demanding changes in policy, which Obama talks about but does the opposite with alarming consistency, is the kinda change we all been hoping for, and such.
Atta boy!!! America will finally return to greatness, once we all fall in line and adore Barack Obama. Better days ahead.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)So its onto just slobbery lipped attacks with no further attempt to refute my arguments.
Good. That's the result I was looking for.
Koios
(154 posts)... why merely guzzle the koolaid, when you can enjoy a tall frost glass that's meth-infused(!!!!)?
Or ... and just going out on a limb here ... call a turd and turd, and a rose a rose, i.e.
Saying the FMW need to be raise but not doing a damn thing to push it through = [ ] Turd | [ ] Rose
Taking Bush TARP buckos and handing it out no strings attached = [ ] Turd | [ ] Rose
Going on a national tour urging Bush Tax Cuts be extended 2 more year, and not repealed as promised = [ ] Turd | [ ] Rose
Working overtime to lower taxes on Corps, already enjoying record after-tax profits = [ ] Turd | [ ] Rose
Praising a supply-side nincompoop (Lawrence Summers) and making him the leading candidate to be the next Fed Chair = [ ] Turd | [ ] Rose
Executing suspected criminals, who might do a crime in the future with drone strikes that have enraged and emboldened terrorists = [ ] Turd | [ ] Rose
Obamacare (okay; victory from the jaws of defeat) which is little more than a gift to private insurance = [ ] Turd | [ ] Rose
Whatatya think? All roses, since Obama is the cat's pajamas and not a center-right effing nightmare in lefty drag?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)"Saying the FMW need to be raise but not doing a damn thing to push it through"
-> The President has been out touring the country pushing for it. Only Congress can really raise it. Fail on your part.
"Taking Bush TARP buckos and handing it out no strings attached"
-> Whatever, most of TARP is getting paid back. I could give less of a shit really. It was used to effectively save the auto companies which was a major middle class victory considering the alternative. Fail on your part.
"Going on a national tour urging Bush Tax Cuts be extended 2 more year, and not repealed as promised "
-> So the fuck what? It was a trade off to get unemployment extended and keep middle class and working poor class tax rates stable in the middle of the recession. Two more years didn't bother me and neither did the 450k compromise. The highest earners did in fact end up going back to the 90s tax rates. Fine by me. Fail on your part.
"Working overtime to lower taxes on Corps, already enjoying record after-tax profits"
-> This is misleading. If you lowered the corporate tax rate and cut offshoring loopholes, as the President has proposed, corps will payer higher taxes than they've paid in decades. Fail on your part.
"Obamacare (okay; victory from the jaws of defeat) which is little more than a gift to private insurance"
-> That's ridiculous. Obamacare expanded Medicaid. Obamacare has forced insurance companies to pay 80% of their intake on health care. It banned pre-existing condition discrimination. It banned lifetime limits. Its about to aid millions of people in helping to pay for their premium if they don't qualify for Medicaid. It extended the life of Medicare for 8 more years. Its funding free preventative care and birth control. Its funding the opening of thousands of free clinics all over the country. If those things aren't progressive to you, then you don't know the meaning of the word.
I'm against Larry Summers as Fed Chair and I think the drone attacks and the NSA and the entire national security apparatus need to be taken down about 20 notches. I disagree with the President on those items but no elected official is going to be without flaws.
Regardless, your going way off topic to avoid discussing how wrong you were when you initially entered this thread and how wrong you were about DADT and Obama's unbeatable record on the advancement of gay rights. You are taking the tact many conservatives take when losing an argument and that is to merely change the subject and try to go all gish gallop to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that you are wrong.
And if you think Obama is center right, you have absolutely no pulse on the ideological spectrums in modern day America. Get off the internet and go outside for awhile. Christ.
Koios
(154 posts)SOTU address + lip service at technology school outside of Austin, Texas = touring country. Gotcha.
Reforming Gramm-Leach-Bliley, using TARP Buckos as leverage, not needed, since we have been mostly repaid for bailing them out from past greed / fraud, and needn't worry they'll do that ever again. Gotcha.
Tax Cuts for the wealthy are only wrong and economically damaging during the campaign. If they can leverage some other stuff, halleluiah. Gotcha.
Obamacare is the cat's pajamas, even if it was a scheme cooked up by the nutty-right Heritage Foundation. Gotcha.
But we agree on the Larry Summers deal. So Obama being visibly angry and defending the supply-side koolaid guzzling nincompoop, when Dem Congresspersons met with and said to Obama that Summers is the wrong guy was a bad thing for Obama to do, in light of what he says when wanting our votes. I'm getting misty here; imagine us agreeing. So allow me to query: what does that say about Obama's economic priorities, and how they might differ from those of McCain or Romney, if at all?
Ditto on drone attacks, NSA and all other Bush 43 on steroids moves by Obama (president) in stark contrast to Obama (candidate) also wrong. Mistier still. Where did I put that Kleenex?
Sorry. I donated gobs and voted for him twice, but will not accept that he stands for what he says. I think he's either weak as leader, or deliberately hoodwinked us, and am mystified that any who hold dear our core Democrat values can in any way be pleased with Obama.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You really hated having your ass handed to you over the gay rights stuff, its really obvious right now. I'm just letting you know that I'm going to continue to point that out.
It wasn't just one speech at a technology school. He is giving speeches all over the place for 2 months. There isn't much more a President can do to push something like raising the minimum wage other than attempting to rally public support to push Congress. What else do you expect a President to do in that situation? I expect a realistic answer.
I don't know where you are getting this from. Taxes were raised on the wealthy.
I don't care who cooked it up. I know that's its already having good effects in states like New York and California where they are fully implementing all the pieces and I know its saving lives and will continue to save lives. That's more important to me than your spittle laden disdain that ignores all the benefits of the law. But if you want to play the association game, Teddy Kennedy was part of the big push for the same kind of law in Massachusetts. And not a single progressive in the house or Senate voted against it. I trust those people's opinion more than some anonymous nobody on the internet who is chucking shit at the wall to see what sticks vs what just leaves a smear.
Koios
(154 posts)... tell me which you prefer I address: your replies to me; the OP?
Thanks,
-K
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You started losing the argument on the gay rights stuff and thus decided to throw in a million other little grievances to try and take the heat off the subject you weren't getting anywhere with.
Okay; gay rights.
Did Obama repeal DADT as promised; or did he kick it down the road, saying the military should review whether repealing it was a problem? And as an aside, might we need to ask the military if allowing Blacks to serve could be problematic for the services?
Late to the party on marriage equality, stating he only supported civil unions until finally it was politically safe? And even still, he's kicked it to state saying it's a states rights issue. Might Black equality also be a state's rights issue?
Did Obama introduce legislation overturning DOMA, as promised? Or was a suit brought by gay equality advocates needed in hopes SCOTUS would do what the promise everything do nothing POTUS was supposed to do?
Whataya think?
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Koios was alerted on 2 other threads. Posting privileges revoked.
Thought you would like to know.
Koios
(154 posts)How did you like having your bubble popped, sending you hurdling back to reality?
I'm gay. I still think this is some bullshit. You are welcome to stand up in other gay people's names but I am going to stand up and call it like I see it. You don't get a pass by doing the right thing when you turn around and do the wrong thing.
... slap me down. What do you disagree with and why?
PS: I'm straight, but loathe having rights others are denied.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)doesn't give you a pass when you do the wrong thing, which is the discussion at hand,
What am I doing wrong?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Misinterp. My bad.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You don't get to do that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)of a miserable, fact free place.
treestar
(82,383 posts)is saying "DADT pretty much ended on its own."
may as well say "I refuse to give Obama credit for anything."
randome
(34,845 posts)It would be nice if our politicians could be 100% straight-forward and honest with us but reality bites, sometimes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
The idea that this administration has been "courageously taking a stand for gay rights" has not really been true, but a lot of people seem to believe that that is the case.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)And Obama STILL thinks it is a State's Rights Issue
Koios
(154 posts)... disgusts me. Are equal rights for Blacks a state's issue, too?
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Koios
(154 posts)“For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” -- NM
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Koios
(154 posts)Mandela is perhaps my greatest hero. So maybe better he said it.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)That is definitely a states' rights issue.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)But that won't stop your lies now will it
Civil Rughts ARE never a states rights ussue
treestar
(82,383 posts)Loving v. Virginia overturned a law prohibiting certain marriages.
The equivalent then is a state making a law prohibiting gay marriage - some state will be dumb enough to do it.
In this case, it is more likely to get to the SCOTUS as a case about red states not giving full faith and credit to gay marriages in states allowing it.
It is not a civil rights issue until someone attacks some state law about it.
The federal government is now recognizing gay marriages for immigration purposes:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19153847-doma-decision-a-win-for-lgbt-immigration-rights-advocates?lite
Next will be seeing if tax returns can be filed as married. I would imagine that won't be difficult to get through if they'll do it for immigrants.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)You know 35+ states have laws prohibiting gay marriage
Cha
(297,154 posts)agenda not to give him credit when it's due.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Alerted on my post and another, he joked about killing Obama on the second one.
Cha
(297,154 posts)A malicious troll getting the ODSers all excited about First Rate Obama Hate..
2. My guess is ...
Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:04 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
... Obama is not as gay-equality-minded as we might like to think. DADT pretty much ended on its own. DOMA, too, ended on its own, with only Obama saying he'd not have Justice defend the law.
And he was late to the party supporting full marriage rights, saying instead he only supported civil unions.
Now don't forget.. "Obama is not as gay-equality minded as we might like to think
"
she sheshe2
(83,746 posts)
Hope Koios is enjoying his pizza!
ChaCha
(297,154 posts)Mahalo for the big smile 
Yes, we can only hope Koios' pizza is worth the price. I certainly am happy he ordered with the extra speedy service feature.
Is that pepperoni or bull puckys?
she~
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)
Cha~whatever floats some people's boat! "No artificial flavors" anyway! What's that second line say? "Could smell .. back"? Can't quite make it out even with my magnifying glass. 
Looks like both the brands are well named.. McPain's Smellio's Pizza.. only for the hard core! 
she
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Oh !
Oh Koios 
We hardly knew thee. 
I'm glad I asked!
And, yet we knew enough..
she~
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)said someone who was not paying attention when it happened.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts) 
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Perhaps you should edit your OP and cite the article to clear up any confusion.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) treestar
(82,383 posts)A wise decision based on many factors.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Koios
(154 posts)... here's the Obama way, which by the way, is brilliant politically. He might be the best pure politician ever born. Hell; he beat a Clinton, among Democrats!!! So it saddened me that he's not used that brilliance to lead on the policies he espouses ... or it did for a time. Now I'm pissed.
So say "human rights" in official statements, which are widely distributed.
Then throw a bone to Americans who are gay, on Leno, where the audience is small and friendly.
If he was of the stature of Jimmy Carter, he'd say flat-out: not all our athletes? Screw you. Your Olympics will not include the USA ... unless.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)... which is why I addressed that first, before adding the aside at the end.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The Obama admin cited the anti-gay legislation as well.
The Link
(757 posts)It takes him a while on gay rights issues.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Versus his words.
emulatorloo
(44,117 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)But when you provide them with proof that he criticized the legislation, he didn't really mean it.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)are unacceptable (Egypt). However, his =actions= are the only thing which matter, and you may find them to be at extreme odds to his words.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — President Barack Obama says New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly would be “well-qualified” to run the Department of Homeland Security.
“I think Ray Kelly is one of the best there is, so he’s been an outstanding leader in New York,” Obama said in an interview Tuesday with with New York’s Univision affiliate.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/obama-says-ray-kelly-well-qualified-for-homeland-security-post/
However:
Occupy Wall Street @OccupyWallStNYC
Secret police recordings: "We're going to go out there and violate some rights." Disgusting.
#StopAndFrisk
http://ow.ly/ncTK0
CIA Agent Had "No Limitations" Working With NYPD After 9/11
http://gothamist.com/2013/06/27/cia_agent_had_no_limitations_workin.php
NYC 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Ruled Unconstitutional
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22375/nyc-stop-and-frisk-policy-ruled-unconstitutional-conservatives-immediately-start-whining
Racial Profiling Muslims: NYPD is Violating Civil Liberties by Spying on Religious Groups
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24817/racial-profiling-muslims-nypd-is-violating-civil-liberties-by-spying-on-religious-groups
"Every year since 2003, blacks and Latinos have consistently accounted for around 85 percent of stop-and-frisk selectees."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/01/mayor_bloomberg_stop_and_frisk_yes_the_controversial_policy_is_really_really.html
Center for Constitutional Rights articles:
http://ccrjustice.org/search/node/NYPD+Stop+and+Frisk+Statistics
And of course Occupiers know all about NYPD and Ray Kelly. Add that Kelly works for Bloomberg, a Wall Street billionaire, and add that to Obama and his nomination of legendary foe of worker's rights Penny Pritzker, and you've got a 1%-a-palooza. One which is blatantly racist.
Of course, Obama could call for an immediate erasure of all "Stand your ground" legislation and the immediate disbanding of ALEC and the NRA, who are some of those behind it. You know?
Regarding peaceful protesters: 2011 video regarding uprisings in Egypt.
I'm part of the Occupy Wall Street movement and over 7400 of us have been arrested over a period longer than a year, as well as many, many brutal attacks including two peaceful Veterans nearly killed in Oakland during one of Quan's multiple riot police attacks upon peaceful protesters.
Obama either ordered these attacks and the FBI and DHS spying which took place from day one, or sat back and allowed them to happen for more than a year.
Why not take a look at what Obama allowed or ordered to happen during the DEMOCRATIC national convention. Dial-up warning (many photos) and some of them are ugly:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710303
Did Obama say anything against this brutality? Anything? Was Rahm Emmanuel or any police punished for engaging in what Obama says is "unacceptable"? And that's just the DNC. More than a year of attacks and spying upon Occupy...
Because as an Occupier assaulted by a policeman while peacefully engaging in my 1st Amendment rights, I find Obama to be a complete hypocrite. Words are worthless. Actions are all that matter.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for people to soil their undies?
sigmasix
(794 posts)dont care what he does- they are convinced Obama is evil and wont rest until his every action, word and deed is recognized for the conspiracy they represent.
.
.
Does the ODS keep idiots warm at night?
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Just because the bubble here wants to believe everything revolves around Snowden, the reality is that there were other factors BEFORE the asylum issue, including the anti-gay policies.
The President explained as much on Leno last night, which is a good thing he did, since it sure doesn't get through the MSM very well.
Cha
(297,154 posts)http://theobamadiary.com/2013/08/07/rise-and-shine-573/#comments
Number23
(24,544 posts)issue than Snowden.
Though Snowden would have been ample reason to me for the president to cancel the tete a tete with Putin, these three reasons should be enough for anyone.
Cha
(297,154 posts)post on it downthread, 23.
Here's a pertinent quote from one of the links..
Despite canceling the Moscow talks with Putin, the White House said a meeting set for Friday between Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel with their Russian counterparts would proceed "to discuss how we can best make progress moving forward on the full range of issues in our bilateral relationship."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3424532
treestar
(82,383 posts)The WAPO article and fact that Kerry/Hagel are meeting with Russian counterparts tells us who it is that is "childish."
Cha
(297,154 posts)with Pres Obama and his "teddy bear".. only makes them look bad.
President Obama isn't meeting with Putie because of a lot of major reasons not just the hacker/leaker. Not, the least is Gay and Civil Rights.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and our freedoms more at odds with other places in the world.
yes, it harms our national security, as well as the security of many of our citizens.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Room to disagree on this, but in general I'm dubious about subverting realpolitik out of idealism.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)do with Snowden than with gay rights. Why did we not support the military take over in Myanmar but are supporting the military takeover in Egypt? There always has to be something in it for the government to take such action.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)I'm sure it will eventually.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Thanks.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)well. To find this out I had to watch an entire segment of the Jay Leno show which is a sign of great dedication on my part. He did well. I wish he'd do Ferguson instead....
William769
(55,145 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts) 
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)cancelling putin's ass was putin's atrociious stance on Gay Rights and Civil Rights.
Cha
(297,154 posts)"Obama: 'No patience' for anti-LGBT laws in Russia"
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/politics/obama-putin/
snip//
President Barack Obama said Tuesday he has “no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.”
Speaking to “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno, the president was asked by the host about recent legislation in Russia that cracks down on gay rights.
“Do you think it will affect the Olympics?” Leno asked the President, whose own views on the subject have evolved in the course of his presidency. Russia is slated to host the Winter Olympics in 2014, in the city of Sochi.
Obama was adamant. “Every judgment should be made on the track, or in the swimming pool, or on the balance beam, and people’s sexual orientation shouldn’t have anything to do with it.”
He also noted Russia’s eagerness for a successful Olympic games, saying "I think they understand that for most of the countries that participate in the Olympics, we wouldn't tolerate gays and lesbians being treated differently.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/07/president-obama-no-patience-for-anti-lgbt-laws-in-russia/
It seems some just read your caption and comment on that.. not even seeing your "edit". Ready to pounce.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)I thought that's what summits with foreign leaders were for?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It would cut off diplomacy to a greater degree.
applegrove
(118,622 posts)playing golf in Hawaii. And that he has many shirtless photo opportunities leading up to the summit. To stick his finger in Putin‘s eye. Because Putin is destroying the lives of many lgbt people in Russia.