Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

It seems ot be something he's wrestled with over the last 15 years. Personally, he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, he has stated that, and believes in the government recognizing civil unions which provide equal protections, benefits, and recognition under the law for same sex couples. However, legally, and philosophically, he doesn't believe such a distinctioncan be enshrined in practice, as his reasons are entirely based on his faith; As a society, we must be able to justify our rules, laws, and regulations to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

That's basically a paraphrase of the most nuanced statement I've seen or heard from him. You'll find little sound bits here and there where he says he supports same-sex marriage as well as bits where he says he opposes it, but in the more nuanced, in depth discussions of the issue, I notice a pattern of him covering this dichotomy of resolving his own religious beliefs with his stance from a legal perspective. He seems to understand that his religion-inspired reasons may not be logically sound and thus is constantly wrestling with himself over his personal moral stance, but is also able to keep it isolated from what he knows is the moral stance from a legal perspective.

I'm sure you'll hear otherwise from many posters about his "true" belief, but every interview and soundbyte and transcript I've heard or read, that's the view that comes through in the most detailed discussions with Obama on the issue.

His ability to isolate his personal morals (Which he may have a hunch are not quite morally just) from what is right as official policy is one of the reasons I voted for him in the first place. He gets it.

Either that or he's waiting for his 2nd term and/or a shift in public opinion so it doesn't fucks his re-election.

Me and father William of Ockham like it better.

Obama being in favor of repealing DOMA is somewhat curious to me. After all, we're past the half way point of 2011 and heading into the election year. Perhaps its just a coincidence that his view has 'evolved' on this issue heading into the election cycle but I doubt it.

 

[Kosmo]

I've read some interesting takes on Obama's view of the Presidency and how it relates to his gradually shifting views on gay marriage. I think he sees his role more as presiding over the change process rather than being at the forefront of it.

Here is an analysis along those lines I mostly agree with.

It's the same Obama MO - whenever possible do not take a position on something and try and leave it vague so that those wondering what he feels may project their desires as his desires. This was the the brilliance of his "hope" motto - he didn't reveal too much and everyone voting for him pretty much assumed he believed what they believed - whatever that was.

 

[Kosmo]

Look at my previous post =P I agree but I also don't think that Republicans should be too confident in a huge turnout, especially with the candidates they have. This isn't 2010.

I must have been typing at the same time!

I don't think Republicans think students will suddenly have a big switch to their party - they simply need them to show up in "traditional" numbers or just a slightly lower turnout with some switchover. It's kind of like the African American vote - which came out huge for Obama and voted what, 98% for him? If they turnout in normal numbers, that right there knocks about a full percentage point off of Obama's numbers.

 

[Plumbob]

The college students that supported him in 2008 will have mostly graduated and entered into probably the toughest post graduation job market ever. Those coming into college will have the typical myopia that college students do, but they have likely seen their families have a bit of a rough time and probably won't be all gung ho for Obama.

I would expect his support to be about the same as any Democrat outside of 2008 would have - meaning about 20% of them will show up and those who were very supportive of him will likely be apathetic and not even bother.

A plausible theory...
http://thedp.com/node/75537

While President Barack Obama has seen his national approval rate tumble since the beginning of his presidency, his support among college students stays strong.

According to a recent poll by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, support for Obama among college students has actually increased by nine percent since October, bringing his college-student approval rate to 60 percent — a figure markedly higher than the 48-percent approval rate Obama held nationally for the week of March 28 in a recent Gallup poll.

Maryam Ahranjani, a law professor at American University in Washington, D.C., suggests that the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s 2008 campaign has remained present in students more so than anyone else.

not supported by the data.

 

[PantherLotus]

I think what Obama's evolving view means is "your views are evolving, as are mine."

Too bad his views can't evolve on prosecuting the shit out the villains on Wall Street.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Either that or he's waiting for his 2nd term and/or a shift in public opinion so it doesn't fucks his re-election.

Me and father William of Ockham like it better.

He is simply stating or agreeing with what is accepted by the majority and doing so closer to the election cycle.

I think what Obama's evolving view means is "your views are evolving, as are mine."

Too bad his views can't evolve on prosecuting the shit out the villains on Wall Street.

Are his views evolving like many others OR are his views evolving because of others. That is my question. At the end of the day it doesn't matter as long as he supports repealing DOMA but it is an interesting question nevertheless.

 

[PhoenixDark]

His opinion is "evolving" because it's now politically convenient for him. If public opinion wasn't so in favor of it, neither would he; which is why I can't really respect his position here. A leader doesn't follow public opinion on civil rights

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm suggesting that his views are merely a reflection of ours, which means he's not a leader but a mirror. My problem with that is that he would get 90% public support for prosecuting the Wall Street scum (the ones knowingly breaking the laws, I mean), including the intractable teatards. Why doesn't he reflect that part of us?

I think it's more likely that he's just a politician. I think it's also more likely that most of our heroes are just politicians. Obama makes a good point in some college "how to govern" class I saw the other day -- even Lincoln had to make politically calculating moves (see: EP), but today he's seen as a hero.

Maybe Obama will eventually be loved, once DOMA and the wars and this recession all come to an end. Maybe it will take a few decades to show just how much of a 'leader' he was, how loaded his rhetoric is with references to how things ought to be. For now he just seems like a very well branded, slightly left-leaning corporatist. Maybe someday I'll too will think he was a hero.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I'm suggesting that his views are merely a reflection of ours, which means he's not a leader but a mirror. My problem with that is that he would get 90% public support for prosecuting the Wall Street scum (the ones knowingly breaking the laws, I mean), including the intractable teatards. Why doesn't he reflect that part of us?

I think it's more likely that he's just a politician. I think it's also more likely that most of our heroes are just politicians. Obama makes a good point in some college "how to govern" class I saw the other day -- even Lincoln had to make politically calculating moves (see: EP), but today he's seen as a hero.

Maybe Obama will eventually be loved, once DOMA and the wars and this recession all come to an end. Maybe it will take a few decades to show just how much of a 'leader' he was, how loaded his rhetoric is with references to how things ought to be. For now he just seems like a very well branded, slightly left-leaning corporatist. Maybe someday I'll too will think he was a hero.

I think that is a very accurate way to view Obama. Seeing the UK arrest the individuals responsible for the hacking scandal (even if none of them have been indicted) makes it that much more maddening that we have never and most likely will never indict or prosecute the Wall Street scum and politicians responsible for the recession.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It's the same Obama MO - whenever possible do not take a position on something and try and leave it vague so that those wondering what he feels may project their desires as his desires. This was the the brilliance of his "hope" motto - he didn't reveal too much and everyone voting for him pretty much assumed he believed what they believed - whatever that was.

I'm pretty sure Obama has always stated that DOMA is unconstitutional.

 

[polyh3dron]

His opinion is "evolving" because it's now politically convenient for him. If public opinion wasn't so in favor of it, neither would he; which is why I can't really respect his position here. A leader doesn't follow public opinion on civil rights

This is the posturing shit he needs to do to make things happen. If he came out firmly in favor of gay marriage I don't think he would have as much chance in making it legal due to the right wing outrage machine. It's like Michael Moore said once, Obama's genius is that he fakes right and goes left often.

And as jon said, Obama has been on record before saying that DOMA is unconsitiutional. It's just that when a law is on the books, his DOJ has to support it.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm suggesting that his views are merely a reflection of ours, which means he's not a leader but a mirror. My problem with that is that he would get 90% public support for prosecuting the Wall Street scum (the ones knowingly breaking the laws, I mean), including the intractable teatards. Why doesn't he reflect that part of us?

I think it's more likely that he's just a politician. I think it's also more likely that most of our heroes are just politicians. Obama makes a good point in some college "how to govern" class I saw the other day -- even Lincoln had to make politically calculating moves (see: EP), but today he's seen as a hero.

This is all true. And that is exactly why we have to criticize them, and relentlessly so. Because just like making politically calculating moves is "what politicians do," making demands (even inflexible ones) on politicians is "what citizens do." When we fail to do our job, it actually affects which move becomes the best politically calculated one. Politically calculated moves are made in the direction from which the demands are being heard. And when it comes to something like a decision about what to do with Wall Street, those demands have to be immensely louder and more persistent than they otherwise would, because they have to overcome the hugely substantial benefits that Wall Street provides for election campaigns. Same with any issue where the "other side" has interests to protect and where that side is well heeled (i.e., any issue affecting large and powerful corporations).

 

[Deku]

His opinion is "evolving" because it's now politically convenient for him. If public opinion wasn't so in favor of it, neither would he; which is why I can't really respect his position here. A leader doesn't follow public opinion on civil rights

He's being a bit of a political opportunist here, but when the opposition does not respect non traditional views on marriage, or religion (ie: Obama isn't that religious) you have to sort of 'fake it' and sit in that area of ambiguity just as most democratic and a few Republican politicians in recent memory have faked being religious while in office.

That speaks more to the political climate than the person.

Obviously, if he wins the next election by being ambiguous it would be preferabble to a nutwing getting into power because he stuck to his principles.

 

[Kosmo]

I'm pretty sure Obama has always stated that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The Constitutionality of DOMA is not his to determine, even if he says he won't defend it. His "views" are all over the map, he was for it in 1996, then said he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, and then won't defend DOMA. I think this pretty much nails it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html

Anderson Cooper called out President Obama on his Tuesday show for flip-flopping on gay marriage.

Obama is under increased scrutiny about his "evolving" views on gay rights in the wake of the battle for gay marriage in New York. Obama will be in the state on Thursday to attend a high-priced fundraiser with gay donors.

In his "Keeping Them Honest" segment, Cooper said, "New questions are being raised about what the president actually believes about gay marriage and whether his public opposition to it is real or just political posturing."

He then ran through the by-now familiar tale of President Obama's stance on gay marriage, from his initial written support for it in 1996 to his stated opposition to it when he began running for national office. (Obama advisers recently told The Huffington Post that his current position on the issue is that it should be left up to the states.)

Cooper played footage from the recent Netroots Nation Conference, where White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was grilled about Obama's shifting statements about gay marriage.

"Hard to see how the president's position has changed so much," Cooper said. "The only thing that has changed is his need for a wider audience to vote for him."

Cooper then brought on gay rights activist Cleve Jones and Democratic strategist Paul Begala to discuss Obama's flip-flopping. Jones called the president's moves a "political calculation, and sadly, I think it's the wrong one."

"You know, Paul, Democrats attack conservatives for being hypocritical on issues that they're hypocritical about," Cooper said to Begala. "But I don't hear a lot of Democrats attacking their own president for hypocrisy."

Personally, I take the Ron Paul stance - leave marriage to the church and support civil unions. What's the big deal?

 

[Vicetrailia]

This is all true. And that is exactly why we have to criticize them, and relentlessly so. Because just like making politically calculating moves is "what politicians do," making demands (even inflexible ones) on politicians is "what citizens do." When we fail to do our job, it actually affects which move becomes the best politically calculated one. Politically calculated moves are made in the direction from which the demands are being heard. And when it comes to something like a decision about what to do with Wall Street, those demands have to be immensely louder and more persistent than they otherwise would, because they have to overcome the hugely substantial benefits that Wall Street provides for election campaigns. Same with any issue where the "other side" has interests to protect and where that side is well heeled (i.e., any issue affecting large and powerful corporations).

I agree, so do we start by instilling this into the young?

 

[mckmas8808]

If you look in 2008, it was hip to vote Obama. Many of the folks voted and wanted to be part of a movement, at least IMO. Sure, many were excited by him but I am not sure how many of those who were excited actually knew about his politics. 3 years later, it still feels like a recession, these youths are paying more for their education, its possible many of them still are out of work, their parents may have lost their jobs, and the excitement is no longer there.

.

How is that any different from any President that wins his first time? Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan and so on all ran and won with people wanting to "Change" America in a way that you could question did they really know everything about that guy.

 

[gcubed]

I must have been typing at the same time!

I don't think Republicans think students will suddenly have a big switch to their party - they simply need them to show up in "traditional" numbers or just a slightly lower turnout with some switchover. It's kind of like the African American vote - which came out huge for Obama and voted what, 98% for him? If they turnout in normal numbers, that right there knocks about a full percentage point off of Obama's numbers.

i dont think thats going to happen. I still think the african american vote is going to be really high

 

[GaimeGuy]

The Constitutionality of DOMA is not his to determine, even if he says he won't defend it. His "views" are all over the map, he was for it in 1996, then said he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, and then won't defend DOMA. I think this pretty much nails it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html

Really? You're going to criticize him for not having the same position he did 15 years ago? This flip flop crap again? Can't people change?

 

[Kosmo]

i dont think thats going to happen. I still think the african american vote is going to be really high

I think so too, but we're really talking about 1 percentage point either way, which certainly can make a difference. He will still get 90%+ of whoever turns out.

Really? You're going to criticize him for not having the same position he did 15 years ago? This flip flop crap again? Can't people change?

On fundamental issues like this, I can't think of anyone who is a progressive, taking a progressive stance on most issues like this, and then changing that stance unless it is simply for political gain.

 

[gcubed]

I think so too, but we're really talking about 1 percentage point either way, which certainly can make a difference. He will still get 90%+ of whoever turns out.

i mean turnout as well. It could definitely be smaller, but it won't be back to 2004 numbers

 

[mckmas8808]

The Constitutionality of DOMA is not his to determine, even if he says he won't defend it. His "views" are all over the map, he was for it in 1996, then said he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, and then won't defend DOMA. I think this pretty much nails it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html



Personally, I take the Ron Paul stance - leave marriage to the church and support civil unions. What's the big deal?

You know there's a difference between being against DOMA and thinking marriage is between a man and a woman right?

His opinion is "evolving" because it's now politically convenient for him. If public opinion wasn't so in favor of it, neither would he; which is why I can't really respect his position here. A leader doesn't follow public opinion on civil rights

PD you should know that he has been against DOMA for years. This hasn't been a political change.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

How is that any different from any President that wins his first time? Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan and so on all ran and won with people wanting to "Change" America in a way that you could question did they really know everything about that guy.

I don't think its different in general but you have to admit that Obama had a true movement of young voters that Bush didn't have. I don't remember the Clinton elections as much since I wasn't really concerned at the time. But IMO this isn't the same as what Bush faced in 2004.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't think its different in general but you have to admit that Obama had a true movement of young voters that Bush didn't have. I don't remember the Clinton elections as much since I wasn't really concerned at the time. But IMO this isn't the same as what Bush faced in 2004.

You are right that Bush didn't have it in 2004. But in 2000 Bush ran on alot of stuff that made moderate conservatives ears perk up a lot. And many of those things didn't get accomplished. Privatizing social security being one of them.

On fundamental issues like this, I can't think of anyone who is a progressive, taking a progressive stance on most issues like this, and then changing that stance unless it is simply for political gain.

Now I'm saying I believe this, but what if Obama said that he was equal marriage in 1996 for political reasons? What if he had always agreed to civil unions, but not marriage and just lied in 1996 for get elected?

 

[jamesinclair]

I dont remember what thread it was, but here on GAF someone was discussing how clearly the wall street journal is still "independent" from the evil empire.

he said that other than daily calls with the editor of the Wall Street Journal, the chairman and chief executive is not involved in day-to-day editorial operations.

Neil said Murdoch would regularly send him clippings of editorials from the Wall Street Journal, to reinforce the slant the paper should take on certain issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline...-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-bubble-171540804.html

 

[PhoenixDark]

I personally think his 1996 position was political; he was running in a liberal district and catered to it, alongside the big money liberals who call shots there.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You are right that Bush didn't have it in 2004. But in 2000 Bush ran on alot of stuff that made moderate conservatives ears perk up a lot. And many of those things didn't get accomplished. Privatizing social security being one of them.





Now I'm saying I believe this, but what if Obama said that he was equal marriage in 1996 for political reasons? What if he had always agreed to civil unions, but not marriage and just lied in 1996 for get elected?

No doubt he was able to get a lot of moderate conservatives but I don't believe it compares to the wave that Obama had in 2008. It truly was a movement. Many saw him as being more than just a politician and now that he has shown himself to be just that its zapped a lot of that excitement. I'm not saying he won't win the youth by a wide margin over whoever has the Repub nomination.

 

[Kosmo]

LOL, stupid MSNBC news chick trying to play the "you're not educated enough to disagree with Bernanke" card and gets owned:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...essman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, you may remember just yesterday said the attack on Rupert Murdoch at a hearing encapsulated what the British were feeling.

Today, Contessa "educated" a conservative Representative that if Congress does not raise the debt raising, the country would be "reverting into a depression." Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he disagreed which prompted the MSNBC host to ask him if he had a degree in economics.

"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors," Rep. Brooks responded.

According to his Congressional page: "Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. In 1978, he graduated from the University of Alabama Law School."

 

[besada]

Really? You're going to criticize him for not having the same position he did 15 years ago? This flip flop crap again? Can't people change?

Yes, and politicians can also lie about their beliefs to get elected and stay elected. You've chosen to believe that a grown adult has changed his mind on the issue multiple times, and you're certainly allowed to do that, but many of us believe that he's mostly just been saying what he needs to massage his election and re-election chances.

And yes, I'll gladly criticize anyone who once believed that gay marriage is a right and then altered his opinion to say it wasn't and then decided that maybe it might be anyway. If you start with the right opinion and then change it, you should be criticized.

The question is, if you believe that gay people should have the right to be married, how can you not criticize him?

 

[Particle Physicist]

The Constitutionality of DOMA is not his to determine, even if he says he won't defend it. His "views" are all over the map, he was for it in 1996, then said he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, and then won't defend DOMA. I think this pretty much nails it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html



Personally, I take the Ron Paul stance - leave marriage to the church and support civil unions. What's the big deal?

1996 was 15 years ago, peoples views ARE allowed to change and grow. Of course the constitutionality of DOMA is not his to actually determine, but it has been his view since he has campaigned for president. His comments about marriage were what his personal beliefs were, but if you are able to grasp nuance, you would have also heard him say that what his personal religious beliefs are and what people's individual rights are, are two separate matters. He has also stated that Same-sex marriage is something that has to be done on the state level, not the federal level (which goes in line with why he believes DOMA is unconstitutional). He has never been wishywashy about this.

I noticed that your last 10 posts or so have been about how Obama never takes a stand on anything and is too scared to make discussions and choose sides.. is this the new Republican talking point? I must have missed that email.

 

[besada]

According to his Congressional page: "Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. In 1978, he graduated from the University of Alabama Law School."

Yeah, he really schooled her, considering Bernanke went to Harvard and MIT. Duke and Alabama Law School..wowsers, Bernanke doesn't stand a chance against credentials like that.

 

[eznark]

Yeah, he really schooled her, considering Bernanke went to Harvard and MIT. Duke and Alabama Law School..wowsers, Bernanke doesn't stand a chance against credentials like that.

"liberal elitist" is so unfounded

 

[besada]

"liberal elitist" is so unfounded

Hey, if you want to start swinging big dicks about credentials, then you have to be ready to take some meat to the face.

Also, the particular liberal elitist we're discussing was appointed by a Republican, so...swing again?

 

[Kosmo]

Yeah, he really schooled her, considering Bernanke went to Harvard and MIT. Duke and Alabama Law School..wowsers, Bernanke doesn't stand a chance against credentials like that.

It's not about Bernanke, it's that she thought she would dismiss him with some snide comment and it blew up in her face. It went from "Do you even have an economics degree" to "Oh, well, you're smarter than Bernanke, then?" It would be like talking quarterbacks to Trent Dilfer when you didn't know him and going "Did you even play QB?" and then saying "Oh, well you're not Joe Montana, are you?"

Oh, and WTF has Bernanke done? LOL He's nothing but a bankster.

 

[polyh3dron]

LOL, stupid MSNBC news chick trying to play the "you're not educated enough to disagree with Bernanke" card and gets owned:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...essman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html

You can have an economics degree without dealing much in macroeconomics at all FYI.

 

[jamesinclair]

*barf* *barf*

Instead, it is being touted as an opportunity for local business leaders to ask Perry questions.

"This will be a small group setting with ample opportunity to ask the Governor about his success at making Texas the most business friendly state in the Union," the invitation states. "Governor Perry is one of our nation's strongest leaders and I know you will enjoy hearing his views on the national economy."

Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/07/20/2471051/possible-presidential-candidate.html#ixzz1SfqUfJNA


Let the echo chamber begin.

Fox news will start running perry = strong economy stories, the wall street journal will release an "unrelated" investigative report on how well the texas economy is doing (ignoring the fact that the reason is oil), AP will pick up on the story and cite the wall street journal, etc etc etc

The process actually began 4 months ago. In the past 4 months three "completely unrelated" stories have been released about how california (big bag regulations) is losing jobs and population to Texas (both untrue).

These stories pop up every 40 days, distant enough to seem unrelated and "new" but clearly pushed by the same people.

 

[reilo]

I know plenty of people with the same degree from the same school in web development/design as me... I wouldn't consider them better than me.

 

[polyh3dron]

*barf* *barf*



Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/07/20/2471051/possible-presidential-candidate.html#ixzz1SfqUfJNA


Let the echo chamber begin.

Fox news will start running perry = strong economy stories, the wall street journal will release an "unrelated" investigative report on how well the texas economy is doing (ignoring the fact that the reason is oil), AP will pick up on the story and cite the wall street journal, etc etc etc

The process actually began 4 months ago. In the past 4 months three "completely unrelated" stories have been released about how california (big bag regulations) is losing jobs and population to Texas (both untrue).

These stories pop up every 40 days, distant enough to seem unrelated and "new" but clearly pushed by the same people.

ugh I hope News Corporation goes down in fucking flames.

 

[Plumbob]

Wait, what are this guy's reasons for believing that not raising the debt ceiling would not significantly damage the economy?

 

[GaimeGuy]

I noticed that your last 10 posts or so have been about how Obama never takes a stand on anything and is too scared to make discussions and choose sides.. is this the new Republican talking point? I must have missed that email.

It's an extension of the "community organizer/never had areal job" BS from the campaign. So was the whining about Obama not giving specifics about what he wanted during the health care debate (and I've seen it more than a few times during this debt ceiling show, too).

It's nothing new. Just trying to paint Obama as being in over his head, the office of the presidency as out of his league, and him as an indecisive, incompetent fool who can read a teleprompter well.

 

[gcubed]

Wait, what are this guy's reasons for believing that not raising the debt ceiling would not significantly damage the economy?

its never happened before, so everyone giving warnings is just the liberal media trying to scare people

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It's an extension of the "community organizer/never had areal job" BS from the campaign. So was the whining about Obama not giving specifics about what he wanted during the health care debate (and I've seen it more than a few times during this debt ceiling show, too).

It's nothing new. Just trying to paint Obama as being in over his head, the office of the presidency as out of his league, and him as an indecisive, incompetent fool who can read a teleprompter well.

Spoiler

In other words, because he's black

 

[GaimeGuy]

Spoiler

In other words, because he's black

Spoiler

Correct

 

[Dude Abides]

I wonder why obvious genius Mo Brooks couldn't even make law review or graduate from Alabama Law School with honors.

 

[Cyan]

Today, Contessa "educated" a conservative Representative that if Congress does not raise the debt raising, the country would be "reverting into a depression." Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he disagreed which prompted the MSNBC host to ask him if he had a degree in economics.

"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors," Rep. Brooks responded.

Haha, nice. I might disagree with the dude, but that's pretty funny.

 

[Skiptastic]

I wonder why obvious genius Mo Brooks couldn't even make law review or graduate from Alabama Law School with honors.

Mo honors, mo problems.

 

[worldrunover]

Either that or he's waiting for his 2nd term and/or a shift in public opinion so it doesn't fucks his re-election.

Me and father William of Ockham like it better.

Am I the only one who giggled when they saw this graph? Come on, it's got the head and everything!

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Am I the only one who giggled when they saw this graph? Come on, it's got the head and everything!

Haha

Woah, can't unsee now

 

[RustyNails]

Economic professors are largely conservative free market peddlers anyway.

 

[Plumbob]

Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

WASHINGTON—Members of the U.S. Congress reported Wednesday they were continuing to carefully debate the issue of whether or not they should allow the country to descend into a roiling economic meltdown of historically dire proportions. "It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), adding that arguments could be made for both sides, and that the debate over ensuring America’s financial solvency versus allowing the nation to default on its debt—which would torpedo stock markets, cause mortgage and interests rates to skyrocket, and decimate the value of the U.S. dollar—is “certainly a conversation worth having.” "Obviously, we don't want to rush to consensus on whether it is or isn't a good idea to save the American economy and all our respective livelihoods from certain peril until we've examined this thorny dilemma from every angle. And if we’re still discussing this matter on Aug. 2, well, then, so be it.” At press time, President Obama said he personally believed the country should not be economically ruined.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-whether-or-not-nati,20977/

 

[Kosmo]

Spoiler

Correct

LOL, you guys are hilarious. I didn't say that it's good or bad that he does it. Politically, it's a great strategy. If you're looking for politicians to take principled stands, then it's spineless.