Daily Kos: OBAMA BEATS SELF IN "DADT" FIGHT

[Cali_Democrat]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/20/213647/24

OBAMA BEATS SELF IN "DADT" FIGHT
by ghostwriter1984
Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 07:30:40 PM PST

<snip>

Done celebrating? Good, because now it’s time to reveal the repeal for what it is: a small political victory packaged as a big progressive win by a president who needs to regain the trust of his liberal base for the 2012 campaign.

<snip>

The truth is the biggest fight against repeal was coming from Obama himself. As commander-in-chief he could have issued a declaration not to enforce DADT (although he’s constitutionally bound to uphold the law, every president has to establish priorities). He chose not to. And he could have allowed judicial repeal, but when the District Court judge issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement, the administration fought successfully to lift it. He could have done either of these and still pushed for legislative repeal as insurance. He didn’t. So the victory looked much harder than it actually was because Obama was originally fighting for the other side.

So let’s not give Obama undeserved credit. I’m not hatin’. It’s a nice win, but he’s disappointed liberals in so many ways it’s important to keep this in context. Obama’s been accused of having a glass jaw. This win doesn’t change that. If this was a prize fight, it wasn’t Buster Douglas shocking the world by dropping Mike Tyson for the heavyweight championship. It was more like a middleweight champ carrying a tomato-can five rounds before deciding to put him down for the count. The ending was inevitable. The payoff was guessing which round.

Progressives have to keep the pressure on Obama and keep pressure on their representatives to keep pressure on Obama. Let’s not be deceived into believing he’s suddenly become the Man of Steel. He may be wearing a cape today, but I’m not expecting him to fly tomorrow.

Read more...http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/20/213647/24

[Democrats_win]

1. Nailed it! The triumphalism is undeserved when Americans have been betrayed.

The Dems have not repealed the bush bankruptcy law.

The bush tax cuts for the rich remain.

Meanwhile the corporate cannibals feast on the hard work of Americans while gloating over their unearned wealth. Economic reform should be job one. Instead it was never done.

[JuniperLea]

35. Keep moving those goal posts!

Makes you look really smart... :eyes:

[MadMaddie]

44. Bingo!

[Jamel]

52. Executive Order for DADT

Obama wanted to do it in a way that would make it "permanently" repealed through congress.Why do people keep bashing this man? UNREAL!

Excerpt:

But is it true that Obama has to wait for Congress to act? Most legal experts agree that a president cannot simply change a law by fiat. “Obama is correct in the most general terms,” says Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches law at the University of Florida. “Federal law can go away in one of two ways: Congress can repeal it or a court can find it unconstitutional.” And it would seem hypocritical for liberals, who complained during the Bush administration that the executive branch was arrogating too much power to itself, to decide suddenly that they like the unitary executive when their side controls it. “I would be unhappy to hear Obama reading his commander-in-chief power to ignore Congress,” says Robert Burt, a professor at Yale Law School.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html#

[Creative]

85. What utter nonsense. If Obama had overturned DADT via executive order,

it could have been overturned via the same process.

On the other hand, when Congress did it, it forever became the law of the land.

[Exilednight]

90. Yes, unless a Republican takes office and puts DADT into law, OR even worse ........

puts an executive order in place during their term making being gay while in the military illegal.

It works both ways.

[ncteechur]

94. What a pathetic loser defeatist post!

[Connie_Corleone]

2. What the??

Obama ALWAYS said that he wanted DADT repealed by Congress. And that's what happened.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pirate Smile]

18. He told Gay activists that he had a plan to get it repealed during the lame duck - and that is

exactly what happened. The people questioning his commitment and strategy were WRONG yet some can't or wont admit it.

[Duke Newcombe]

26. ...and the revisionism begins....

First, he wanted DADT repealed, and promised to repeal it. Then, when his inaction, nay, his actually supporting DEFENDING DADT in court is revealed, now it's, "I support CONGRESS repealing DADT."

Theres no way to "pretty up" lack of leadership or courage.

[JuniperLea]

29. Wow...

That must really make you dizzy.

He wanted DADT repealed, and he got it repealed. You got what you wanted... get over it.

[Kaleva]

49. Well, only Congress can repeal a law.

"First, he wanted DADT repealed, and promised to repeal it. Then, when his inaction, nay, his actually supporting DEFENDING DADT in court is revealed, now it's, "I support CONGRESS repealing DADT.""

Courts can overturn a law but they can't repeal. President Obama aslo said earlier this year in his SOTU speech that he'll work with Congress and the military to end DADT. Not once had he ever said he'll issue an EO or use the courts to overturn the law.

[vaberella]

65. Obviously he understand civics. Ugh.. n/t

[vaberella]

64. He's always said in ORDER to repeal DADT it must be an act of Congress.

You can't repeal the goddamned law any other damned way----so I don't know what you're talking about. If you're saying he didn't say Congress but he used repeal---do you know another way, you can REPEAL a law?! I sure as hell don't. We all know in the court system it can go on indefinitely.


As for defending it in the court. It's the law of the land. When someone takes the Constitution to court it must be defended. Everyone knows this. And it's not exactly secret when these cases are public domain and people can find out. You make it seem like he was hiding some dirty secret. He knows what the law demands and he also knows what he wants to get done.

You and others will find anyway to knock this president even when your grounds are senseless. If it wasn't bloody for him, this shit would still be ignored. He wanted to make it a success when he saw that half his Congress is going to turn into the death of progress the following year. And you have the nerve to knock this and call it revisionist when you're running on misinformation. Just unbelievable.

[jenmito]

47. Unrec for BS.

[JuniperLea]

3. OFFS...

He did it the right fucking way. He cut it out at the root. Jesus God I'm sick of this fucking shit. No wonder I don't read DKos anymore... nor do I read anything from the Firebaggers.

[MadMaddie]

45. So am I JuniperLea

They constantly move the goal post because they want him to fail.

They get what they want and it's still not good enough.

[Pirate Smile]

54. I used to check Daily Kos a few times a day. Now I rarely go there once a week.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. It's actually a great website with a wealth of information

You should read it more often.

[Pirate Smile]

88. LOL

[vaberella]

66. Amen. n/t

[NoPasaran]

4. Punchbowl, meet turd

[ProSense]

5. Wow, a lame diary that sank into oblivion.

"So let’s not give Obama undeserved credit. I’m not hatin’."

:rofl:

[Scurrilous]

7. Pathetic.

:thumbsdown:

[mkultra]

8. more false liberalism

politics of division is a republican method. The title could just be "PLEASE don't stop hating him.!!!!"

[ProSense]

9. Here's an appropriate response

First diary, no previous comments

Got almost as much recs as the diary.

[geek tragedy]

10. Piece of shit diary that got universally criticized

as being, well, a piece of shit diary.

Also from that diary:

"So this wasn’t discrimination where entire classes of people are deprived of their civil rights like, say, blacks during segregation, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Homosexuals could choose not to serve. And if they did serve, they could still be gay. They just couldn’t tell anyone in the service."

:puke:

[phleshdef]

11. Rachel Maddow explained why this reasoning is complete bullshit.

Doing this via executive order or letting the courts intervene would not have resulted in a stable, reliable repeal. And the jury is still out on whether the executive order really would have been legally possible.

[totodeinhere]

37. Let's face it, no matter what method they might use to repeal DADT, it is at least theoretically

possible to reverse it at some point in the future. A future president could reverse an executive order. In a future court case, a court ordered repeal could be reversed. And Congress could reinstate it. All of those scenarios are unlikely, but possible. Nothing is written in stone.

[phleshdef]

42. Well, theoretically, they could reverse the entire constitution and make all rabbits wear glasses.

But we go for the most permanent fix we can get, right? If you are talking about a law passed by Congress, then having Congress reverse it is the best you can do and thats what was done.

[vaberella]

70. No. An executive Order does NOT reverse DADT. ONLY congressional repeal.

An executive order, which can't even be used in this situation, only puts a stall or hold on the law. But once he's out---it goes right back into affect if another President deems it so. And a court case doesn't REPEAL DADT. It only overturns the law and that means against stalling it for a period of time even though it may keep it on the books indefinitely. In order to shut it down and not have it EVER return in any way shape or form is achieved ONLY through congressional appeal. Which is what Obama wanted and fought for. You are like everyone else, are marginalizing the importance of this because you want to make it seem as though Obama did nothing and even worse that some future President could "reverse" it....now do you think a Republic President would or even could issue an executive order on this?! The answer is NO.

[Robbins]

12. You do realize

If Obama did this by executive order the next Republican president,or a More conservative Democrat(Let's pretend one day for shake
of arguement a Dem like Bahy becomes president) could reverse It by executive order.And If Obama just ordered end to enforcement
he would be accursed on Ignoring law.

[dsc]

33. Byah voted for Repeal

giving credit where it is due.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Meanwhile, the DREAM Act has gone down the memory hole. eom

[LeftyAndProud60]

14. If I was Obama, I'd wait till next yr to sign it. Just to piss some of u off. NT

[AtomicKitten]

15. FFS. In his 2010 SOTU address, he started the ball rolling in earnest.

edited for ----> video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGOWYT8NatM

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are ... It's the right thing to do."

And then he systematically knocked out every objection that could possibly have been made. Rather than waiting for it to meander through the courts with no guarantees, he got it repealed permanently. He did it. He f***ing did it.

Pres Obama: "You're welcome."

[JuniperLea]

30. "You got what you wanted... get over it!"

That will be my meme of the day, apparently.

:eyes:

Just when you think things cannot get any more stupid, they do!

[AtomicKitten]

86. It has become a surreal psycho-drama.

[Pirate Smile]

16. Some people insist on being assholes even when they get what they want.

Obama shouldn't bother trying to please them because they will never be happy.

There is a group of perpetually disgruntled Democrats or leftists who seem to take pride in their constant state of pissiness. Please, go hang out in a corner together and leave the rest of us in peace.

[phleshdef]

17. Some so called progressives feel they are entitled to act however they want and say whatever...

...they want and never get called on it. And when someone in the Whitehouse or the President reacts back with justified criticism, its all "how dare they yell at me?! I'm a PROGRESSIVE!". Its disgusting.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Whomever blogger ghostwriter1984 is.....

he/she is full of shit.

"The ending was inevitable"???

Not really. It's just that now that it has happen,
it is something easy to speculate about in retrospect.....
without having anything to lose.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pirate Smile]

21. Here is a decent and fair analysis if anyone actually wants one. That diarist certainly doesn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x572720

[jaxx]

22. LOL if that doesn't beat all.

I hope his lips were pursed and his brow furrowed as he wrote this....because it's just the thing the professional leftists are known for. Ignorance is one thing, but stupidity trumps this one.

[impik]

51. Not stupid, just racists.

[Tx4obama]

23. There have NOT been any discharges under DADT since at least October 21st

CNN article regarding no discharges since Oct 21: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/30/dadt.discharges/index.html?eref=edition_us
AND
Gates narrowed who can OK discharges under 'don't ask, don't tell': http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/21/gates.dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T2

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftynyc]

25. I'm sick to death of all the whining

Frankly, I don't see any difference between his puke critics and his liberal ones. I forgot who made the analogy but it rings very true - if he walked on water, they'd accuse him of not being able to swim. Am I disappointed in him on certain topics? Yes. Considering the alternative, I'm very happy he won the election.

[CitizenLeft]

36. I believe a DUer has that as their sigline - it's LBJ, IIRC

...and so true for Obama, too.

[AspenRose]

95. I think it's Clio's sig line.

And very appropriate.

[great white snark]

27. Jeebus H, and I thought nothing could be worse than your purposely divise polls.

sad

[dennis4868]

28. The Daily Kos....

has lost all objectivity after the tax cut deal...OBAMA PROMISED REPEAL OF DADT BY THE END OF THE YEAR AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED....fuck you Daily Kos! You are the john McCain of blogs....a bitter and angry blog that cannot accept the facts....fuck you!

[WI_DEM]

34. It's on the Daily Kos but it's just somebody's opinion, just like on DU

[ncteechur]

31. Ghostwriter 1984 exemplifies the idea of "professional left"

[WI_DEM]

32. Instead he got it by law instead of executive action--a better deal

[vaberella]

38. This is a bullshit post. Millions of people will benefit from this & it's shameful to equate it to

"small political victory" Shut the fuck up!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. I think you're probably out by an order of magnitude.

My understanding is that the US armed forces amount to about 1.4 million active service personel and about the same again in reserve. Most estimates suggest that 5-10% of the populace is gay, so I think you're looking at a number in the hundreds of thousands, not the millions.

[namahage]

58. Who says that only LGBT people now serving in the military will benefit?

How about their families, who may be counting on them for support?

How about other LGBT people who might have wanted to serve, but for this policy?

How about their straight comrades-in-arms who will benefit from the support of competent pilots, translators and other professionals?

How about, oh, I don't know, EVERYONE who benefits from their service and sacrifice?

Count THOSE, and tell me that only "thousands" will benefit.

[vaberella]

72. You obviously didn't watch the Rachel Maddow show last night. n/t

[Whisp]

39. unbelievable.

but expected.

have your fun, children.

[brooklynite]

40. Unrec'd

President Obama promised in the 2008 Capmpaign to eliminate DADT. Did he promise to do it on Day 1? No. Should he have done it on Day 1? No.

It's easy to demand that the President enact things with the swirl of a pen on an Executive Order. How inconvenient though, that the next President, when he/she comes along, can change everything back with another pen.

It's also easy to demand that the President simply accept a judicial ruling. But the fact that it's the "right" decision doesn't buy you as much political and public support as an actual Law passed by Congress.

By forcing DADT repeal through the legislative process, we now have an endorsement of the policy removal by the voters through their representatives. RW zealots who might want to restore DADT (or ban gays completely) will have as hard a time getting a new bill passed and signed as they likely will get HCR repealed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. Thank you for once and for all proving Gibbs right. (nt)

[MadMaddie]

43. Unbelievable people will find anything to attack President Obama

on.

Fucking ridiculous, he said during his campaign he would have it repealed and he did.


These people make me sick. Can't enjoy a victory no matter what the cost as long as it is an attack on President Obama.

Shameful childish behavior.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kaleva]

48. It took the military 5 years to carry out Truman's EO on desegregation

The last segregated unit in the Army wasn't disbanded until Sept. of 1954.

[impik]

50. Not enough craziness here, you bring the Daily Fox too?

[Still a Democrat]

53. Cali_Democrat needs to explain why this was dragged over here n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

56. I don't need to explain anything

Can you link to the DU rules where it says posters need to "explain" linked articles?

Didn't think so.

[vaberella]

60. You posted shit that says a horrible law that was around for 17 years as a "small political victory"

Dude...that does deserves an explanation. When people want to attack Obama and start reaching... you're out of your element. You marginalize something that has led people to committ suicide, to people losing their livelihood, to something that kept people lying to themselves, those they love and ruining their own lives. And you post some piece of shit article that marginalizes it as a "small political victory" ----this goes beyond politics or even a victory. This has saved lives. I'm fuckin' disgusted. You're completely wrong on this. You expect me and most of DU to take an article that marginalizes something that has been fought for, for almost a generation as a small political victory, seriously. How do you expect that to happen and what made you think this was even a smart article. The writer of the article is a damned jerk. I can respect we have a long way to go and Obama has a lot more to do---but you don't begin something that brought tears to people's eyes as a "small political victory". Goddamned shameful.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. The point of the article was not to disparage the impact of the DADT repeal

The purpose of the article was to explain how the DADT repeal doesn't take away from the fact that Obama has sold us out on so many things from tax cuts for the wealthy to health care reform. Now you can add net neutrality to the list. Obama still has a glass jaw and avoids confrontation regardless of the DADT repeal.

Obama's feet must be held to the fire in order to prevent another sell out of disastrous proportions like the tax cuts for the wealthy. The DADT repeal doesn't take away from the fact that Obama has made blunder after blunder during his time as President.

You better believe that people will go after Obama and continue to go after Obama if he continues along his disastrous path of compromise with the rethugs.

You can be sure that his feet will be held to the fire.

[namahage]

67. So this is about Obama's missteps, and not DADT?

I would think THOSE are what you'd quote if that were your real intention, rather than how DADT was a small accomplishment akin to a "middleweight champ carrying a tomato-can."

If, of course, they were even mentioned in this diary(-uh).

Which, strangely, they weren't.

[vaberella]

69. I've come to realize it's someone who's become a right-wing drone in their need to critique Obama.

n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

73. Feel free to attack the messenger

However, the message will live on regardless of what you think.

[vaberella]

76. Oh most definitely. Live on as crap. Which is seen on the response on DU and DK.

Good job. I love how your playing the victim. You push a message that is laden with faults and when you realize the negative responses rather than adoration of "Hell Yeah the President is weak and we need to keep him in line because what we want is more significant and far more important than DADT." You call yourself the messenger. You're an accomplice to this piece in my eyes, not the messenger. Especially by your steadfast defense of the shit the author is talking about and the quote you post.

[Cali_Democrat]

78. We can agree to disagree. n/t

[vaberella]

79. That I can agree with. You should go back to DK...your writer is deemed a troll. n/t

[vaberella]

68. The point of the article is lost by the first bloody line of stupidity.

Secondly...the article basically runs on a path of marginalizing the LGBT community as a whole.

Let me run through the amount of damned BS in the article that post as stating some sort of truth.

WTF:

1. "Homosexuals could choose not to serve. And if they did serve, they could still be gay. They just couldn’t tell anyone in the service."

2. "Also, in practice DADT affected a small portion of the gay population."

3. "but this wasn’t a peaceful protest met with police batons and fire hoses that defined the civil rights movement of the 1960s."

4. "The truth is the biggest fight against repeal was coming from Obama himself."

People say he's disappointed the liberal base because he's working in a political environment doesn't afford him automatic wins for things he may believe to be the best idea. I have heard people run on some sort of gambit about how Obama is selling out social security and hates the American people. And then I have very liberal democrats like Shelley Berkeley of Nevada, giving an impassioned statement of someone who recognizes what Obama was struggling for but did the best he can: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x572931.


I've heard all your feelings on Obama. But there's no need to find putrid articles of unintellectual diatribe to prove your bloody point. You make yourself and position look bad and not even worth the bloody time. The article is stupid, it's malicious, it's marginalizing. I'm also shocked for someone like your self who considers your self to be of the left and a liberal---you're posting something that is littered with such arguments over a civil rights movement. Everything that writer you claim to have a deeper meaning said is equivalent of something found on a right wing blogosphere.

The bloody writer spent more damned time criticizing the win and the substance behind the fight against DADT or even the repeal of DADT than even criticizing Obama if you paid attention.

You did a great job in pushing right wing meme's. Just what the right side loves of the left who needs to attack Obama on all accounts. Ugh.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. I thought tthe essence of the article was captured in the final paragraph

"Progressives have to keep the pressure on Obama and keep pressure on their representatives to keep pressure on Obama. Let’s not be deceived into believing he’s suddenly become the Man of Steel. He may be wearing a cape today, but I’m not expecting him to fly tomorrow."

------

Was the DADT repeal a great thing? Absolutely. Was the repeal the result of some hardcore political fighting from Barack Obama where he finally knocked down his political opponents when it came to the DADT issue? Far from it. A little too much credit is going to Obama and not enough credit is going to people in the trenches.

Obama can continue to expect his feet to be held to the fire and this victory will do nothing to change that.

[vaberella]

74. The essence of the article was lost in putrid---before one line says keep pressure.

You're defense of this article is startling. Putrid is all through the article and after the writer is done criticizing the fight for DADT repeal---he says one line of a meme you and others keep pushing on DU. Not to mention, I don't waste my time on a statement like above that mocks Obama and belittles the President (but wants him to be stronger)--when he's shown great strength to get something done 100% of the public and I'm sure including you---didn't believe he could have happen in this session. Many others even equated him doing this sort of maneuver as a way to have DADT fail forever. Ugh...

Dude...you've already set up your side. And showed that you're willing to go to any lengths even to arguments that attack the president in the stupidest way to prove a point you could have said yourself in two lines. You don't even realize how much you hurt your own credibility with this. I've already established you're not worth listening too. There are lots of critics on DU I pay attention too...mainly ruggerson, even dsc. However, you've gone to a length that's cross the line into nonsense.

In future, when you want to marginalize the president. Make sure you do it in a smart way, where the author doesn't run on sideways attack on a fundamental change.

[Cali_Democrat]

77. I can understand that you disagree with the article

Discussion forums tend to have differing view points. Perhaps you should be more tolerant of people who disagree with your position or have a contrary opinion to the normal group think.

The fact that you won't pay attention to my posts in the future doesn't really keep me up at night. I really don't consider you to be the arbiter of credibility on DU.

[vaberella]

80. I am extremely tolerant...I was of your post until I read...

"small political victory" and various other completely wrong and insulting statements about the LGBT community in the military. The fact you can't see, but you defend these statements me wonder about you. I'm not expecting you to lose sleep or even care. The mere fact you respond to my posts say otherwise. I happen to care about your post though---and I'm not shy about saying it. Because I find these troll posts harmful to the progressive cause, not helpful.

[Cali_Democrat]

81. Again.....we have a disagreement when it comes to the point of the article

You think the article's sole purpose is to insult the GLBT community and Obama.

I feel the article helps to keep Obama's feet to the fire, especially when reports about cuts to Social Security are beginning to surface.

We can agree to disagree. That tends to happen on internet discussion forums.

[namahage]

82. I do understand about differing viewpoints on a discussion board.

Like these:

"Obama's feet must be held to the fire to prevent another sellout of disastrous proportions."

"Obama has to compromise...whether we like it or not."

[Cali_Democrat]

83. Compromise should not have included giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy

That was one of the main issues he stood on during his election. A roll back of the tax cuts was his main source of additional revenue in his projected budgets. Now he will have to cut the budget elsewhere to make up for it and Social Security looks to be a candidate.

By compromising on that and getting very little in return, he's put a huge hole in the deficit for the next several years. There is nothing wrong with compromise, as long as it's done responsibly.

Unfortunately, Obama has been extremely irresponsible when it comes to compromise recently and he's basically given Republicans everything they want. Especially on tax cuts. Now the rethugs will hang the deficit around his neck. You better believe these tax cuts are horrible for the deficit.

I cannot support that. I had no idea Obama would compromise on taxes and he has really turned me off.

[Still a Democrat]

84. Flame bait n/t

[boppers]

55. Yay for shit-stirring!

Boo for actual thinking and analysis, it's not as much fun!

:eyes:

[johnaries]

59. What total BS. If Obama walked across the Potomac, some

people would yell "Obama can't swim!"

Yes, I stole it - but that doesn't make it less true!

[Arkana]

62. Jesus Christ, this is the biggest dose of pissy and angry soup I've ever seen.

We won. Stop trying to turn it into a loss. And since it was done via Congress, DADT is dead and buried, not just knocked unconscious.

[LawnLover]

75. Bullshit

The left has trumpeted DADT as one of the defining promises of Obama's campaign, and now that he's come though, it's a small political victory?

Fuck that.

[backscatter712]

87. What a crock of bullshit!

He's never good enough for some people.

Those goalposts sure look heavy...

[joshcryer]

89. ghostwriter1984 prefers declaration to repeal, gotcha.

ghostwriter1984 is happy with the possibility that a declaration can be overturned easily in the future, gotcha.

ghostwriter1984 doesn't care for legslitation that will be very difficult to overturn (revoking rights is more difficult than providing them), gotcha.

Thanks for letting us know what this random person "ghostwriter1984" thinks.

I can think for myself, though.

[dionysus]

91. oh my, what a load of garbage!

[tweeternik]

92. Unrec for never being happy with real accomplishments ....

WTF is wrong with you! DADT, START treaty and hopefully the 9/11 first responders bill. ok, you're not happy about "some" things, but can't you give the guy a break? He is doing a great job in a very difficult environment. No problem complaining when you don't agree with something, but Jesus Christ ... back off when something is actually accomplished!!!

[Recursion]

93. At what point do we cross the line into satire?

Though now that I think of it that may have been some time last year.