The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[SAM_Hard8 50]

KISS' Gene Simmons: Obama "Has No F***ing Idea What The World Is Like"

[AmScray 355]

KISS' Gene Simmons: Obama "Has No F***ing Idea What The World Is Like"

Fairly certain that Gene Simmons, born Chaim Witz in Haifa, is a bit ethnocentric on the Israel issue, which Obama isn't a great champion of. It's why he (Witz) also rants about the UN (which is indeed a pathetic body- League Of Nations Redux- but not for the reasons Gene Simmons thinks). He's right about them being a paper tiger, though, but that's something he and Israel should be thankful for.

[CaneBrain 95]

Fairly certain that Gene Simmons, born Chaim Witz in Haifa, is a bit ethnocentric on the Israel issue, which Obama isn't a great champion of. It's why he (Witz) also rants about the UN (which is indeed a pathetic body- League Of Nations Redux- but not for the reasons Gene Simmons thinks). He's right about them being a paper tiger, though, but that's something he and Israel should be thankful for.

Not to mention that the big controversy here is a non-issue. The 1967 borders thing was also the position of both Bush white houses. And Clinton. Obama just said it out loud.

[AmScray 355]

The '67 Borders Thing' is a fucking joke.Israel took that land fair and square after being attacked on multiple fronts by multiple nations and OOPS, hugely outnumbered, wound up winning the war. They should've taken MORE land, but were kind and decided not to (the rags had better be thankful I wasn't running that six day war. Day 7, I'd have a Governor-General installed in Downtown Cairo, sipping high tea observing his subjects building new monuments next to the Pyramids shaped like a big ass star of david)The answer to this question is simple. Jordan ships enough land to make a new Palestine. Palestinians are given a choice: relocate or die. They gtfo, Israel exists in peace as an oasis of modernity, innovation and progress amidst a sea of Islamist monkeys who can eat each other for all I care, the end.

[CaneBrain 95]

The '67 Borders Thing' is a fucking joke.Israel took that land fair and square after being attacked on multiple fronts by multiple nations and OOPS, hugely outnumbered, wound up winning the war. They should've taken MORE land, but were kind and decided not to (the rags had better be thankful I wasn't running that six day war. Day 7, I'd have a Governor-General installed in Downtown Cairo, sipping high tea observing his subjects building new monuments next to the Pyramids shaped like a big ass star of david)The answer to this question is simple. Jordan ships enough land to make a new Palestine. Palestinians are given a choice: relocate or die. They gtfo, Israel exists in peace as an oasis of modernity, innovation and progress amidst a sea of Islamist monkeys who can eat each other for all I care, the end.

I agree with all of this. I'm just pointing out that nothing Obama said is new. That's been America's position as 3rd party negotiators forever (much to Israel's dismay).

[AmScray 355]

We really, REALLY need to marginalize oil. Go-go-go cheap electric car. Once oil is out of the picture, appeasing those stupid turds ends.

[vbnautilus 48]

We really, REALLY need to marginalize oil. Go-go-go cheap electric car. Once oil is out of the picture, appeasing those stupid turds ends.

We have an easy solution available to oil dependence: use it all up. It's a finite resource. Once it is gone, no more problem.

[85suited 0]

I agree with all of this. I'm just pointing out that nothing Obama said is new. That's been America's position as 3rd party negotiators forever (much to Israel's dismay).

click here for articlean interesting article

Yesterday, President Obama dramatically altered longstanding U.S. policy regarding Israel’s borders and her security by calling upon Israel to pull back to the “1967 borders”. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is set to meet with President Obama today, quickly rejected the President’s call, asserting that such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel’s security and wellbeing. In addition, the Prime Minister stated that he expected to hear the President reaffirm commitments made to Israel in 2004 by President George W. Bush and the Congress which made it clear that Israel would not have to withdraw to the “1967 borders.” President Bush’s commitments reaffirmed U.S. foreign policy that dates back to 1967 and President Johnson. At that time, it was widely understood that there would be no return the “1967 borders” as they were incapable of providing Israel with adequate defense.It must be pointed out that there is no such thing as “1967 borders” between the Jewish State of Israel and the Palestinian State. Firstly, there was no Palestinian State at that time. Secondly, given that there was no Palestinian State, there was no official border. There was and is the “Green Line” which runs through the West Bank. This “line” is the 1949 Armistice Line that marked where Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (1947-1949). The War of Independence was a result of Israel’s Arab neighbors attacking the newly created Jewish State in an effort to destroy her. The Armistice Line is what people refer to as the “1967 border” since it served as the unofficial border between the Jewish State and Jordan until the Six Day War in 1967.The Armistice Line, which cut Jerusalem in half and put the Western Wall under Jordanian control, was never intended to serve as an official international border. As was specified as early as the 1949 General Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel: “the line that was designated did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties, since it had been dictated by exclusively by military considerations.”During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel was attacked by Jordan and other Arab neighbors. In self-defense, Israel pushed the Jordanians out of Jerusalem and all regions that lay to the west of the bank of the Jordan River – gaining possession of the region (now referred to as the West Bank) that lies on the east side of the “Green Line”.In response to the Six Day War, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 242 which expressed concern with “the grave situation in the Middle East”. In addition, the resolution called for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The Resolution states that the U.N. must “promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement” between the involved parties. The Resolution does not call for Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank and, thus, return to the “1967 borders”. Some have tried to twist the wording of Resolution 242 by asserting that it calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forced from THE territories. But this is not the case. It has been widely documented by those involved in crafting the Resolution that the language used was intentional. There was never the expectation that Israel would return to the “1967 borders”. They were an artificial armistice line that provided no security to Israel.The idea that, through negotiations, Israel would withdraw from PARTS of the West Bank and, in turn, define her eastern border was embraced by President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. In 2005, President Bush stated that “any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the (“1967 borders”) must be mutually agreed to.”Yesterday, President Obama changed U.S. foreign policy by stating that the United States believes that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” These words legitimize an artificial line that was never intended to define a border. While the President acknowledged the need for “mutually agreed swaps” of land, his words put “the 1967 lines” at the foundation of any future discussions between Israel and Palestine. This is not what the statesmen who crafted U.N. Resolution 242 intended years ago. This is not what previous Presidents demanded of Israel. And withdrawing to the “1967 borders” is not Israel’s idea of peace and security.While on the surface President Obama’s words might seem like nothing new, they are. They give legitimacy to a border that endangers the Jewish State, cuts through the heart of Jerusalem – the capital of Israel and Judaism’s holiest city, and simply defines where a war stopped in 1949 – but never defined where the sovereign nation of Israel ended and where the sovereign nation of Palestine began. The President appears to be reinterpreting the purpose of the “1967 border”. Given that the President’s “reinterpretation” came hours before Prime Minister Netanyahu was set to arrive in the United States to meet with the President and speak before Congress, it appears that his words were meant to dictate what Israel’s borders will look like. The President’s timing suggests that he wants to undermine the Prime Minister’s vision and set preconditions for future peace talks. Israel, a friend and an ally who already has the challenge of negotiating peace with a “partner” that refuses to recognize her very right to exist and now includes Hamas, deserves to be treated better.Sadly, the President seems to be following in the footsteps of other world leaders who have attempted to rewrite or tinker with the complexities surrounding Israel and her neighbors. It is time for those of us who love Israel to reach out of our President and let him know that his words are putting Israel in danger, delaying the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution and leading us all away from a true and lasting peace.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah, I think that article overstates things. 1967 as a starting point has always been there. And insistence on mutually agreed land-swaps has always been there. Obama is not insisting they go back to 1967; the swaps part makes that abundantly clear.I think a lot of people don't think Obama does enough to support Israel so they are jumping on this when there is not much there.

[hblask 1]

We have an easy solution available to oil dependence: use it all up. It's a finite resource. Once it is gone, no more problem.

This is why environmentalists should love SUVs. Fewer cars on the road to use up all the oil. As the oil gets used up, prices go up, and renewables become cost effective. This leads to a technological burst in green energy.The govt dumping money into green research is a total waste. You can't just skip steps by legislative fiat. Just use up the oil and get it over with.

[vbnautilus 48]

This is why environmentalists should love SUVs. Fewer cars on the road to use up all the oil. As the oil gets used up, prices go up, and renewables become cost effective. This leads to a technological burst in green energy.The govt dumping money into green research is a total waste. You can't just skip steps by legislative fiat. Just use up the oil and get it over with.

Yup. Except that you do have to research alternatives concurrently... as the gas dries up the motivation for finding alternatives will increase and more money will go towards the solution. The real mistake is conservation.

[Spademan 94]

I think a lot of people don't think Obama does enough to support Israel so they are jumping on this when there is not much there.

And some of them, like Rep. Michele Bachmann ®, would support Israel into Armageddon to avoid Yahweh's curse:" I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle. Right now in my own private Bible time, I am working through Isaiah . . . and there is continually a coming back to what God gave to Israel initially, which was the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and I have a wonderful quote from John Adams that if you will indulge me [while I find it] . . . [from his February 16, 1809 letter to François Adriaan van der Kemp]: I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization. . . . So that is a very long way to answer your question, but I believe that an explicit statement from us about our support for Israel as tied to American security, we would do well to do that. "That's right, some of our political leaders... this woman's name was floating around as a presidential candidate for awhile there... some of our political leaders want to enact wide-ranging foreign policy based on Yahweh. A curse. This powerful woman is warning us about a curse. From Yahweh god. In public. She is motivated out of fear of a curse. And saying it in public.She is not isolated. She is not an anomaly. The religious right flaunt this shit. Yup. That ol' harmless religion thing. Haha, yup. Just let those silly Christians (like 80% of our not-progressing-out-of-nonsense country) have their little beliefs. Don't be rude. Don't do anything to attempt to disabuse people of this stupidity. As long as it makes them feel fuzzy.Totally harmless.

[ahosang 0]

Spademan said:

And some of them, like Rep. Michele Bachmann ®, would support Israel into Armageddon to avoid Yahweh's curse:" I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle. Right now in my own private Bible time, I am working through Isaiah . . . and there is continually a coming back to what God gave to Israel initially, which was the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and I have a wonderful quote from John Adams that if you will indulge me [while I find it] . . . [from his February 16, 1809 letter to François Adriaan van der Kemp]: I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization. . . . So that is a very long way to answer your question, but I believe that an explicit statement from us about our support for Israel as tied to American security, we would do well to do that. "That's right, some of our political leaders... this woman's name was floating around as a presidential candidate for awhile there... some of our political leaders want to enact wide-ranging foreign policy based on Yahweh. A curse. This powerful woman is warning us about a curse. From Yahweh god. In public. She is motivated out of fear of a curse. And saying it in public.She is not isolated. She is not an anomaly. The religious right flaunt this shit. Yup. That ol' harmless religion thing. Haha, yup. Just let those silly Christians (like 80% of our not-progressing-out-of-nonsense country) have their little beliefs. Don't be rude. Don't do anything to attempt to disabuse people of this stupidity. As long as it makes them feel fuzzy.Totally harmless.

From your post, that person sounds like a Gentile advocating Jewish supremacy through 'Christian' biblical reference. The whole thing with foreign policy dictated by scripture is scary.

[Spademan 94]

From your post, that person sounds like a Gentile advocating Jewish supremacy through 'Christian' biblical reference. The whole thing with foreign policy dictated by scripture is scary.All goyim, bow down...

She was speaking at "a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Los Angeles last week", so, being a politician she found the most apt way to spin her lunacy to suit the audience. Heh.And absolutely agreed on the policy dictated by scripture being scary thing - but I wouldn't limit it just to foreign.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

This is why environmentalists should love SUVs. Fewer cars on the road to use up all the oil. As the oil gets used up, prices go up, and renewables become cost effective. This leads to a technological burst in green energy.

That's like saying: "I hate bullets, so I'm going to unload a clip into my chest to help get rid of them."

[vbnautilus 48]

That's like saying: "I hate bullets, so I'm going to unload a clip into my chest to help get rid of them."

It's not like that since bullets are not a really finite resource (we could make them out of a variety of materials) and the global usage of bullets is not outstripping demand, so this would be futile with bullets where it wouldn't be with oil. Also, its an empirical question, but I suspect it would be better for the environment in year 2050 if we burned off all of the existing oil very quickly rather than continuously burning it at a slower rate for decades. If you burn it all off the planet can start to go back to its oil-free equilibrium sooner.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

It's not like that since bullets are not a really finite resource (we could make them out of a variety of materials) and the global usage of bullets is not outstripping demand, so this would be futile with bullets where it wouldn't be with oil. Also, its an empirical question, but I suspect it would be better for the environment in year 2050 if we burned off all of the existing oil very quickly rather than continuously burning it at a slower rate for decades. If you burn it all off the planet can start to go back to its oil-free equilibrium sooner.

I would argue the exact opposite. The planet is able to convert CO2 into O2 using plants. The effects of a small, steady excess of CO2 can be handled by these plants (possibly by an increase in the amount of ocean algae or something of the like). But large, sudden increases would be very hard to compensate for.In addition, there are strong non-linear effects at play. For example, the a sudden, strong increase in temperature would cause ice to melt very quickly and one could get more total ice melting than if one had a small increase in temperature for a longer period of time. In addition, there are various global-warming positive feedback loops that would be put into play.

[vbnautilus 48]

I would argue the exact opposite. The planet is able to convert CO2 into O2 using plants. The effects of a small, steady excess of CO2 can be handled by these plants (possibly by an increase in the amount of ocean algae or something of the like). But large, sudden increases would be very hard to compensate for.In addition, there are strong non-linear effects at play. For example, the a sudden, strong increase in temperature would cause ice to melt very quickly and one could get more total ice melting than if one had a small increase in temperature for a longer period of time. In addition, there are various global-warming positive feedback loops that would be put into play.

As to your first point I think we have to consider that the steady flow may be above the amount that is compensated for by plant life. But what you've said is totally reasonable, and probably the canonical view; I just think it's also possible that the opposite may be true, and that it's very hard to know (but I'd be curious to see some of these scenarios run through environmental models). Just saying we shouldn't assume prolonged slower burning is better.

[Spademan 94]

[digitalmonkey 929]

Thank you, Saddam.

[Spademan 94]

The whole thing with foreign policy dictated by scripture is scary.

GOP Congressman Dan Webster (R–FL) is

for Israel IOT keep Yahweh's hand on Amuricuh. WEBSTER: I believe God’s hand needs to be on this country. HOST: That’s right. WEBSTER: Some people have been talking about, every place I go, they bring up the issue foreign aid. I go, you can’t get rid of all foreign aid. Why? Because you ask them and they go, ‘yea we can’t do that.’ You take away the money from Israel? No. That’s something we can’t do. Do I like foreign aid? Sometimes, but not every time. Don’t like giving money to our enemies, but I love giving money to Israel. And so there’s a picture there that people realize that, we stop helping Israel, we lose God’s hand and we’re in big time trouble. HOST: That’s right.

[CaneBrain 95]

National Security Obama, en fuego:http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/0....html?hpt=hp_t1

GOP Congressman Dan Webster (R–FL) is

for Israel IOT keep Yahweh's hand on Amuricuh. WEBSTER: I believe God’s hand needs to be on this country. HOST: That’s right. WEBSTER: Some people have been talking about, every place I go, they bring up the issue foreign aid. I go, you can’t get rid of all foreign aid. Why? Because you ask them and they go, ‘yea we can’t do that.’ You take away the money from Israel? No. That’s something we can’t do. Do I like foreign aid? Sometimes, but not every time. Don’t like giving money to our enemies, but I love giving money to Israel. And so there’s a picture there that people realize that, we stop helping Israel, we lose God’s hand and we’re in big time trouble. HOST: That’s right.

This guy just has to be from Boca Raton's district. I definitely have some family that thinks this way though.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

National Security Obama, en fuego:http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/0....html?hpt=hp_t1

I'd bet the information about his location came from the Bin Laden raid.Also, good job, Pakistan, for totally being in control over the terrorists randomly living in your territory. You stay classy, Pakistan.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think it's super awesome that we continue to raid and bomb the shit out of their country and they don't say anything. If anyone touched our border with a drone, their entire country would be glass in like 2 hours.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Gingrich's campaign has all but collapsed. Huckabee isn't running, Trump is out, Mitch Daniels isn't running, and people like Palin are jokes.This nomination is Romney's to lose. He has by far the most name recognition and the most money. Essentially, all he has to do is avoid large gaffes and a huge implosion and he should be able to win the nomination. People like Pawlenty are too unknown to most of the public, and no one else seems legitimate.Romney has a smart strategy. He's running the primary fight as a general election campaign. His best argument is that he can beat Obama, and he's made that the focus of his campaign. Ignore all other Republicans as if they're not there and don't matter, and aim at the big target.