President Obama at a Bipartisan Meeting on the Supreme Court

The President describes his hope for the confirmation process for the next Supreme Court Justice before meeting with bipartisan leaders of the Senate in the Oval Office.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• President
• Barack
• Obama
• Supreme Court
• Justice
• John Paul
• Stevens
• McConnell
• Reid
• Leahy
• Sessions
• Bipartisan

[33tracker]

@maskedphrogg You are right - regardless of the party - you can count on the president to be pro-Monsanto, pro-bitoech, pro-bigAg. Europe is awake to the dangers of genetic engineering - India is waking up. The USA is totally asleep.

I voted for Obama, but now I see he is not for the people - he is for Monsanto. Wiki Monsanto - reads more like a rap sheet. You trust them to genetically "morph" the food you eat? Wake up!!

[KravistDillonT]

@maskedphrogg I wouldn't hardly call his comment on the official White House channel an intelligent thing to say, no matter how he feels. Nor yours.

[maskedphrogg]

@truevoiceofsanity

Fix your nym

being that you are a

true voice of idiocy

A Phd is not a requirement to teach

Not having attended University we shouldn't be surprised at your ignorance of this simple fact

[maskedphrogg]

@truevoiceofsanity

How odd. Last time I looked at a map Afghanistan was separated from Iraq by Iran.

Has there been some geophysical land mass changes in that region of the globe recently? Having a difficult time finding any discussion of it.

So do you support moving US troops into a region btwn two theaters of war where engagement w/multiple sources of enemy already occur? I'd be looking to ally w/Iran not make current opponent goals easier. Why would you support sandwiching troops like that?

[truevoiceofsanity]

@maskedphrogg part 2:

Obama is reducing the troop count in Iraq but moving them to Afganistan. The sanctions against Iran he is doing are happening now, as we speak. Any president would have done that. Afg. isn't in the middle east; it is in Eurasia.

[truevoiceofsanity]

@maskedphrogg Once the cat is out of the bag and a country is in a virtual state of anarchy, its a very different situation than unilaterally declaring war without cause. Its not obvious to me whether its better for the people of Iraq for the US to leave (and allow them to continue to kill each other) or stay (and draw some ppl out to kill the "invaders".)

[maskedphrogg]

@truevoiceofsanity

No, not just Dems THIS Dem in particular. But that is not the point and you know it. As Pres, Obama has done nothing to change the course of Policy implemented by the WH. Not only did he not withdraw troops, he expanded on the neo-con drive to expand the war effort in the ME.

Funny how you ignore his first SC nomination. Sotomayor turns out to be the far right Justice the neo-cons have no problem with.

Besides being stuck in 2007, is there any recent event you care 2 discuss?

[truevoiceofsanity]

@maskedphrogg Its true that democrats voted to invade Iraq and thus supported the Bush doctrine by doing this, based on "WMDs". I've not denied this. However, them doing so, involved a perceived threat to U.S. interests. Iraq was perceived as a hostile, unstable, and aggressive. I can't see any evidence of "magnifying" said doctrine, by either party. (Well, McCain wants to invade Iran).

The use of sanctions has tons of precedents.

[maskedphrogg]

@truevoiceofsanity

Right

Continuing and magnifying the Bush Doctrine is opposition to it.

You really ought to get out more often. Grab a newspaper, and read it.

At least the Sunday paper since your obviously unwilling to keep up with current events on a daily basis.

[maskedphrogg]

@groundhog2008

Let me dumb this down for ya

Wot fer? It not be like grounhawg gun b goin class

grounhawg be dang nere da bestist smahtist beef joiky goin

Translation1: education package would go unused when those it intends to benefit the most ignore it

Translation2: The DOE is already a demonstrable failure. Exhibit A --> Groundhog2008