Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Man, it is amazing how many people blame Obama for the 'failure in Egypt'. Wait . . . so millions of Egyptians vote for the Muslim Brotherhood and get buyer's remorse . . . and that is Obama's fault?!?! These people are crazy. They'll blame everything on Obama.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Man, it is amazing how many people blame Obama for the 'failure in Egypt'. Wait . . . so millions of Egyptians vote for the Muslim Brotherhood and get buyer's remorse . . . and that is Obama's fault?!?! These people are crazy. They'll blame everything on Obama.

Obama should have put more pressure on Morsi. I do think the entire egypt from January 2011 to today has been a failure on his part. He's dithered completely. What is the US's position on anything regarding egypt? It seems to change every day.

 

[speculawyer]

Obama should have put more pressure on Morsi. I do think the entire egypt from January 2011 to today has been a failure on his part. He's dithered completely. What is the US's position on anything regarding egypt? It seems to change every day.

Obama's job is to run the USA. If the Egyptians pick a moron and he fucks things up, that's not Obama's fault.

What's the US's position on Egypt? Tell them to be democratic and not to fuck up Israel if you want to keep getting your aid. The rest is Egypt's problem.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Man, it is amazing how many people blame Obama for the 'failure in Egypt'. Wait . . . so millions of Egyptians vote for the Muslim Brotherhood and get buyer's remorse . . . and that is Obama's fault?!?! These people are crazy. They'll blame everything on Obama.

The first rule of leadership: EVERYTHING is your fault.

 

[Kinvara]

Obama's job is to run the USA. If the Egyptians pick a moron and he fucks things up, that's not Obama's fault.

What's the US's position on Egypt? Tell them to be democratic and not to fuck up Israel if you want to keep getting your aid. The rest is Egypt's problem.

Exactly. Foreign involvement would only make things worse.

This is a problem for the Egyptian people to solve.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

The first rule of leadership: EVERYTHING is your fault.

Even when it was Congress and he is constitutionally powerless to do whatever the GOP or anyone think is right. The President always gets the blame.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Obama's job is to run the USA. If the Egyptians pick a moron and he fucks things up, that's not Obama's fault.

What's the US's position on Egypt? Tell them to be democratic and not to fuck up Israel if you want to keep getting your aid. The rest is Egypt's problem.

And obama didn't do that. He didn't put any pressure on Morsi to be democratic and stood by until the last moments inviting anti-US sentiments from all sides. He didn't use the leverage the US has, and which you acknowledged. He doesn't want to have anything to do with the mid-east's problems (notable exception being lybia) he does everything to not get involved which can instead leads to worse problems down the road as were seeing in Egypt and Syria.

His job is also to preserve American interest and standing in the world. An egypt that is in a low level civil war and breeding violence and the ideologies that led to attacks that killed Americans and Israelis in the past isn't just egypts problem.

Don't take this to be an endorsement of the GOP's specific criticism, its my own.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Well, the executive has full purview when it comes to foreign affairs. It's the only thing where it can do what it wants. Congress can only approve treaties or declare war. So technically he does have the lion share of the blame if something does go wrong.

The US never was really involved with Egypt till Camp David. That area has usually been the British and French domain. They depend on the canal for a lot of their trade. I would think they would do something before Obama ever did.

And obama didn't do that. He didn't put any pressure on Morsi to be democratic and stood by until the last moments inviting anti-US sentiments from all sides. He doesn't want to have anything to do with the mid-east's problems (notable exception being lybia) he does everything to not get involved which can instead leads to worse problems down the road as were seeing in Egypt and Syria.

His job is also to preserve American interest and standing in the world. An egypt that is in a low level civil war and breeding violence and the ideologies that led to attacks that killed Americans and Israelis in the past isn't just egypts problem.

Democracy doesn't come from without. It is developed internally. Hell, we Americans don't even do it right half the time. And why would he want to get involved in the middle east. Everything turns to shit when you do.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Democracy doesn't come from without. It is developed internally. Hell, we Americans don't even do it right half the time. And why would he want to get involved in the middle east. Everything turns to shit when you do.

Such a statement is so vast its almost meaningless.

I'm not saying we should have picked their leaders or anything or written their constitution. But when abuses of the process and morsi behavior come out we can use our aide as leverage to change behavior. The words of the US have tremendous weight in that part of the world? Why don't we use it ever? Obama has never been ahead of these revolts, he just goes from crisis to crisis. No pre-planing no semblance for any consistency in response, etc.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Such a statement is so vast its almost meaningless.

I'm not saying we should have picked their leaders or anything or written their constitution. But when abuses of the process and morsi behavior come out we can use our aide as leverage to change behavior. The words of the US have tremendous weight in that part of the world? Why don't we use it ever? Obama has never been ahead of these revolts, he just goes from crisis to crisis. No pre-planing no semblance for any consistency in response, etc.

That's not the goal of foreign policy. We don't close doors when unnecessary. Why would Obama talk bad about a guy that was democratically elected in his own country? What is the gain if he doesn't lose power? You are arguing for a moral objective without considering a strategic objective. Also, there has been constant mentions in the press of Obama telling Morsi that actions after elections is more important than the election itself.

Also, everyone was caught off guard by the Green Revolution. Not only the people in the middle east, but those in the west too. The dictators had been in power there for over 30 years. You act like he should co-op these revolts and make them look like they are influenced by a foreign power. That's a big mistake. People tend to band together, no matter how much they hate each other, to oppose an outside force. In the past 70 years, the US has only done two things right in the middle east: Camp David and the first Gulf War. And both of those were working with groups involved in the problems. The rest that went bad happen because we started out thinking we are better than those in the middle east and were going to impose our values on them. Name anything else that turn out well for our interference.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's not the goal of foreign policy. We don't close doors when unnecessary. Why would Obama talk bad about a guy that was democratically elected in his own country? What is the gain if he doesn't lose power? You are arguing for a moral objective without considering a strategic objective. Also, there has been constant mentions in the press of Obama telling Morsi that action after elections is more important than the election itself.

Also, everyone was caught off guard by the Green Revolution. Not only the people in the middle east, but those in the west too. The dictators had been in power there for over 30 years. You act like he should co-op these revolts and make them look like they are influenced by a foreign power. That's a big mistake. In the past 70 years, the US has only done two things right in the middle east: Camp David and the first Gulf War. That is a bad batting average. Name anything else that turn out well for our interference.

I'm not saying anything like that. I don't think we should close out anyone.

I'd been reading Egyptian commentators talking for weeks about the possibility of a military coup. Obama seemed completely taken aback (maybe he's doing more behind the scenes but public diplomacy is important). I'm not arguing moral objectives, I'm arguing for the strategic and smart goal of a democratic and stable Egypt. That is good for the US and the world.

And on success vs. failure I think your looking at it differently than me. Stability is success. You're not going to have big things to look point to if the president is doing well. And I'm not arguing that stability is good if it comes at the cost of human rights because that leads to future problems.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I'm not saying anything like that. I don't think we should close out anyone.

I'd been reading Egyptian commentators talking for weeks about the possibility of a military coup. Obama seemed completely taken aback (maybe he's doing more behind the scenes but public diplomacy is important). I'm not arguing moral objectives, I'm arguing for the strategic and smart goal of a democratic and stable Egypt. That is good for the US and the world.

And on success vs. failure I think your looking at it differently than me. Stability is success. You're not going to have big things to look point to if the president is doing well. And I'm not arguing that stability is good if it comes at the cost of human rights because that leads to future problems.

Yeah, your thinking we should make Egypt the 51st state. Sorry no. Would the US like a stable Egypt? Sure. Is that our job? No. It will always be hard to make Egypt stable. You can ask Speclawyer. He will tell you that Egypt has very little domestic oil left. So they have to import a lot of it to run their power plants and agriculture sector. So they are being squeezed from the end. They also have a population pyramid where they have a lot of young people and those people don't have anything to do but revolt. So being squeezed there too. They also have a funding problem. Egypt doesn't really have anything but tourism and cotton for trade. Morsi can't fix all that in a year. Can't make Egypt stable when they have a zero sum system going on over there.

Also, withholding the aide we give them to not attack Israel is real smart. Be more democratic or you won't get the little amount of outside money you do get. And then watch a one country conflict spill over into a regional conflict. Because that aide money goes to the military.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah, your thinking we should make Egypt the 51st state.

No, you keep making this an either or debate. Its not us ignoring them vs. running their country

This is a editorial that's more inline with my views though I'm not for full and immediate withdraw of money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e0bd0a-e5a2-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

And the military aid is not the thing thats keeping egypt and Israel from going to war. That's not gonna happen ever.

 

[Oblivion]

Can someone provide a summary of the shenanigans in Egypt? Haven't been following that too closely.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

No, you keep making this an either or debate. Its not us ignoring them vs. running their country

This is a editorial that's more inline with my views though I'm not for full and immediate withdraw of money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e0bd0a-e5a2-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

And the military aid is not the thing thats keeping egypt and Israel from going to war. That's not gonna happen ever.

That op-ed doesn't make sense. First he complains about the Morsi government, then he complains about the military overthrowing it. The middle east has a history of strong armies disposing governments. You can look at Turkey, Pakistan, or a number of other nations. Our own military has an oath to the constitution and not to the government. In Egypt the question comes down to what is legitimate? Morsi was legitimate because he actually won an election.

Now this op-ed suggests that we try to control him by withholding aid. We do that already with Iran, North Korea, and other countries. Sometimes it works, but the author seems to think this is a magic bullet. Who knows what would happen if we cut off aid to their military. Maybe they get rid of Morsi faster. Would you complain about that coup as well because we stopped aid? Then you would have all those that voted for Morsi pointing their finger at America for his downfall. Egypt has a lot of problems. What they really need is a George Washington/Nelson Mandela type. And that has to come from inside their country and not from the US.

 

[RustyNails]

Can someone provide a summary of the shenanigans in Egypt? Haven't been following that too closely.

1. Arab Spring protests sweep Egypt and protesters oust the Egyptian dictator in 17 days of continuous protests.
2. Military steps in and takes control of the government, sets timeline for elections.
3. Elections take place, Muslim Brotherhood wins majority of the vote and they elect Morsi as President.
4. Morsi and his party draft the Constitution extremely favorable to their party's platform, and Morsi starts giving himself authoritative powers much like Mubarak did.
5. 2nd round of protests take place now against Morsi. Egyptians are extremely wary of leaders giving themselves authoritative powers and not listening to the opposition. Military gives ultimatum to Morsi, come to resolution with opposition or resign. Morsi passes the deadline and Military performs coup d'etat.
6. Military assigns head of supreme court as interim leader of Egypt, dissolves Parliament and suspends Constitution as it sets timeline for new elections.
7. Muslim Brotherhood now protesting on the streets. Military now arresting MB members including putting Morsi under House Arrest.

 

[Oblivion]

1. Arab Spring protests sweep Egypt and protesters oust the Egyptian dictator in 17 days of continuous protests.
2. Military steps in and takes control of the government, sets timeline for elections.
3. Elections take place, Muslim Brotherhood wins majority of the vote and they elect Morsi as President.
4. Morsi and his party draft the Constitution extremely favorable to their party's platform, and Morsi starts giving himself authoritative powers much like Mubarak did.
5. 2nd round of protests take place now against Morsi. Egyptians are extremely wary of leaders giving themselves authoritative powers and not listening to the opposition. Military gives ultimatum to Morsi, come to resolution with opposition or resign. Morsi passes the deadline and Military performs coup d'etat.
6. Military assigns head of supreme court as interim leader of Egypt, dissolves Parliament and suspends Constitution as it sets timeline for new elections.
7. Muslim Brotherhood now protesting on the streets. Military now arresting MB members including putting Morsi under House Arrest.

Thanks.

For no. 6, didn't the military do the same thing the first time around?

 

[B-Dubs]

Thanks.

For no. 6, didn't the military do the same thing the first time around?

Yep, they're pretty much back to step 2 now waiting for step 3.

 

[Oblivion]

Yep, they're pretty much back to step 2 now waiting for step 3.

Wait, that brings up another question. Weren't the Righties bitching about the MB taking over Egypt during that entire time? Thought they would be happy that they've been ousted?



In other news, David Brooks essentially admits that the Republicans are intentionally trying to sabotage Obamacare (starts at 4:53):

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/#52413722

 

[KtSlime]

Wait, that brings up another question. Weren't the Righties bitching about the MB taking over Egypt during that entire time? Thought they would be happy that they've been ousted?



In other news, David Brooks essentially admits that the Republicans are intentionally trying to sabotage Obamacare (starts at 4:53):

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/#52413722

That would presuppose that the Right is being honest with their messaging, which we all already know is not the case.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wait, that brings up another question. Weren't the Righties bitching about the MB taking over Egypt during that entire time? Thought they would be happy that they've been ousted?



In other news, David Brooks essentially admits that the Republicans are intentionally trying to sabotage Obamacare (starts at 4:53):

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/#52413722

Hence why they're so mad the employer mandate is being delayed. It gives the administration more time to ensure it actually works (unlike now).

 

[Link]

In other news, David Brooks essentially admits that the Republicans are intentionally trying to sabotage Obamacare (starts at 4:53):

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/#52413722

Is this supposed to be some kind of breaking news?

 

[Oblivion]

Is this supposed to be some kind of breaking news?

Everyone knows this, but you're not supposed to say it out loud.

 

[Link]

Everyone knows this, but you're not supposed to say it out loud.

Right, because Republicans are so good at not saying stupid shit out loud.

And let's not forget McConnell's "Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term." announcement.

 

[thepotatoman]

So further proof that republicans need to sabotage government in order to prove that government doesn't work. If their core philosophy that government doesn't work, why must they work so hard to make it seem ineffective? If Obamacare is bound to fail, why not just let it fail?

Sabotage can only mean they're afraid of it's success, but its success can only be good for the people as a whole.

 

[RustyNails]

So further proof that republicans need to sabotage government in order to prove that government doesn't work. If their core philosophy that government doesn't work, why must they work so hard to make it seem ineffective? If Obamacare is bound to fail, why not just let it fail?

Sabotage can only mean they're afraid of it's success, but its success can only be good for the people as a whole.

GOP is only there for the purpose of eliminating taxes. Everything else is hogwash.

 

[Oblivion]

GOP is only there for the purpose of eliminating taxes on the rich. Everything else is hogwash.

Fixed.

 

[Hitokage]

Broaden the base.

 

[sc0la]

Broaden the base.

But eliminating taxes does "broaden my base" #knowhaimsayin

 

[thepotatoman]

I finished watching to the end of that Meet the Press video, where they moved to imigration reform and someone asked why republicans fight so hard for small details when 95% of the bill is exactly what republicans want.

It taught me of a new political tactic when challenged with a very hard to defend point. I'd call it throwing a hissy fit. Basically you just act so incredibly offended that the point was even brought up, and hope that viewers take it to mean the oppositional point isn't even worth thinking about.

I wonder how well that tactic works. I just see it as annoying childish whining which only makes me dislike the person making the point. It's so annoying I had to stop the video before he finished his point. But who knows, maybe it does work on the people you want it to.

I was already thinking that these republicans were acting like a 6 year old who got the exact flavor of cake and frosting he wanted, but because there's no sprinkles he slams it on the floor so no one gets to have any. Labrador's childish tantrum when asked why he did that just fits too perfectly.

 

[Lucky Forward]

It taught me of a new political tactic when challenged with a very hard to defend point. I'd call it throwing a hissy fit. Basically you just act so incredibly offended that the point was even brought up, and hope that viewers take it to mean the oppositional point isn't even worth thinking about.

It worked for Newt Gingrich.

 

[Oblivion]

Tucker Carlson: ‘Cheap student loans keep people out of the labor market’

 

[B-Dubs]

Former madam Kristin Davis will run for comptroller, if Eliot Spitzer does too

Never mind, it's old. Really old. That said he has just announced he's going to be running for the spot so here's hoping she remembers her warning

 

[thepotatoman]

Tucker Carlson: ‘Cheap student loans keep people out of the labor market’

He's completely right. I mean how are rich people supposed buy their children the best, highest paying jobs if poor people are getting the same degrees and out competing them for the good jobs. Capitalism is supposed to be about competition, and how is that going to work if you can't compete using your established bank account?

Honestly though, the correct solution to this is better minimum wage laws and health care reform in order to make working at McDonalds not seem so terrible that everyone feels they absolutely need to go to college just so they don't die from lack of health insurance before they're 50.

 

[KtSlime]

A bit off topic, but I haven't found a good answer for the past hour of combing wikipedia, the DoJ website and Google. What was the last company split by the US using antitrust laws? Or perhaps a better question is, when was the last company split up by the US. I can't find any recent cases.

 

[Byakuya769]

He's completely right. I mean how are rich people supposed buy their children the best, highest paying jobs if poor people are getting the same degrees and out competing them for the good jobs. Capitalism is supposed to be about competition, and how is that going to work if you can't compete using your established bank account?

Honestly though, the correct solution to this is better minimum wage laws and health care reform in order to make working at McDonalds not seem so terrible that everyone feels they absolutely need to go to college just so they don't die from lack of health insurance before they're 50.

But if you have any interest in using your cognitive abilities, working at McDonalds is fucking terrible regardless of how much you get paid.

 

[Mike M]

A bit off topic, but I haven't found a good answer for the past hour of combing wikipedia, the DoJ website and Google. What was the last company split by the US using antitrust laws? Or perhaps a better question is, when was the last company split up by the US. I can't find any recent cases.

American Bell in '84?

 

[KtSlime]

American Bell in '84?

Yeah, that was the most recent I have found. Has it really almost been 30 years? No wonder there are companies too big to fail, we haven't been vigilant.

 

[Oblivion]

A bit off topic, but I haven't found a good answer for the past hour of combing wikipedia, the DoJ website and Google. What was the last company split by the US using antitrust laws? Or perhaps a better question is, when was the last company split up by the US. I can't find any recent cases.

Didn't the Clinton Administration bring a suit against Microsoft?

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah, that was the most recent I have found. Has it really almost been 30 years? No wonder there are companies too big to fail, we haven't been vigilant.

Microsoft in the 90s, but it was successfully appealed.

 

[Link]

Didn't the Clinton Administration bring a suit against Microsoft?

Wasn't that just to block them from making certain acquisitions? It certainly didn't break them up.

EDIT -

Microsoft in the 90s, but it was successfully appealed.

Or that.

 

[KtSlime]

Didn't the Clinton Administration bring a suit against Microsoft?

Microsoft in the 90s, but it was successfully appealed.

I'm aware of that suit, but did not consider it since it was appealed and no action was taken.

I was thinking about what an unfair advantage large corporations have against citizens and the state. The most we do in this day is fine corporations who act out of the interest of the people, but many fines are really small. Is there a place where I can read about how we set the value on those fines? What do people think about taking all corporate profit for X years as punishment. We imprison actual humans for less, and longer durations, our current political situation in how we treat corporations as nearly sacrosanct entities seems a bit surreal to me.

 

[Gotchaye]

It seems to me that we're unlikely to make a dent in corporations doing bad things unless we actually do start imprisoning actual humans. There are some ways that you can incentivize corporations, but you're limited to things that are easy to check. It's very hard to set a penalty high enough that a corporation won't end up doing something that's unlikely to be discovered for five or ten years.

That's because there's a principal-agent problem at work in corporate decision-making. Shareholders care about the future value of their shares, but they don't have access to lots of information relevant to predicting that future value. Companies keep secrets even from their shareholders, after all, and often this is good for shareholders since shareholders can't be informed of something without releasing the information to the public at large.

The people making decisions for the corporation don't care about the future value of a company's shares, except to the extent that their compensation packages include restricted stock (but these rarely trigger five or ten years after a CEO steps down). Executives care about what the market thinks the stock will be worth in the future. An amoral CEO has every reason to have the company engage in wrongdoing which makes it appear to be in better shape as long as it is unlikely to be discovered for many years, regardless of any fines that the company might have to pay at that time. By the time the wrongdoing comes to light the CEO will have sold off his shares; he doesn't care what the price does after that.

 

[thepotatoman]

It seems to me that we're unlikely to make a dent in corporations doing bad things unless we actually do start imprisoning actual humans.

...

I don't know anyone who disagrees. It just seems like everyone just mostly either thinks there's nothing we can do to change it. Even if we got campaign finance reforms, I don't know what would stop the cycle of ex-wall street insiders becoming the financial big wigs of the government because their real world business experience makes them the "most qualified".

 

[Matugi]

My friend just told all of his followers on Twitter that if they were smart they should follow the YoungCons twitter account.

how the fuck does smart apply to a twitter account that tweets shit like this:

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 37m

14th amendment gave citizenship to freed slaves: 94% Republican support // 0% Democratic support.

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 1h

13th Amendment abolished slavery: 100% Republican support // 23% Democrat support

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 3h

Obama called Chicago the "blueprint for gun control in America." There have been 74 shootings there, 12 fatal, since Wednesday. #SoSad

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 18h

#ObamaRegimeInOneSentence Lecturing the people about morality while voting for babies who survive botched abortions to be killed.

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 19h

#LiberalLogic Mitt Romney, a successful business and family man who donates millions to charity, is viewed as the problem not the solution.

it's like cancer for my frontal lobe

 

[TacticalFox88]

My friend just told all of his followers on Twitter that if they were smart they should follow the YoungCons twitter account.

how the fuck does smart apply to a twitter account that tweets shit like this:

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 37m

14th amendment gave citizenship to freed slaves: 94% Republican support // 0% Democratic support.

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 1h

13th Amendment abolished slavery: 100% Republican support // 23% Democrat support

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 3h

Obama called Chicago the "blueprint for gun control in America." There have been 74 shootings there, 12 fatal, since Wednesday. #SoSad

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 18h

#ObamaRegimeInOneSentence Lecturing the people about morality while voting for babies who survive botched abortions to be killed.

Young Conservatives ‏@YoungCons 19h

#LiberalLogic Mitt Romney, a successful business and family man who donates millions to charity, is viewed as the problem not the solution.

it's like cancer for my frontal lobe

I lost brain cells.

I seriously can't even tell you which tweet is the worst!

 

[kehs]

My friend just told all of his followers on Twitter that if they were smart they should follow the YoungCons twitter account.

how the fuck does smart apply to a twitter account that tweets shit like this:

it's like cancer for my frontal lobe

Well...YoungCons

 

[Matugi]

Well...YoungCons

Not all conservatives are bad. Just ones that are wholly idiotic and completely and totally factually misinformed but like to spout their opinions as gospel, like these fellows.

 

[Wilsongt]

Lousiana.

Louisiana Republican Introduces Bill To Ban LGBT Rainbow Flag From Public Buildings

A city councilman in Louisiana is drafting a new set of ordinances that would ban the flying of rainbow flags on any public property after a constituent took umbrage with one such flag that was raised by a local LGBT organization.

In celebration of National Pride Month and the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act last month, members of the LGBT community in Lafayette, Louisiana gathered in Girard Park for the annual Pride in the Park celebration. Local paper The Daily Advertiser was there to cover the event, and ran a photo in the next day’s paper of participants hoisting the rainbow flag that has come to represent the LGBT community.

Ray Green, a veteran of the Korean War, saw the photograph and brought it to the attention of Andy Noquin, a City-Parish councilman, who is now drafting legislation that would outlaw the flying of the rainbow flag — and any other non-government flag — in any public venue.

Green, who served in the Korean War, told the Daily Advertiser that he found the flag offensive:

“I did not go overseas and fight for our country so that we could come back and be subject to something like that,” Green said Friday. “Several of us (veterans) feel that the flying of this flag is a poke in the eye of a way of life.”

Opponents of the proposed ordinance say no disrespect was intended, and were quick to point out that there are thousands of gay veterans who have fought for their country as well.

Green told the paper that while he is not “against the gays,” he is opposed to “the act itself.”

There already exists a firm set of federal laws that govern the flying of the American flag on public property, including a provision that says no flag may fly higher than the American flag on the same property. Organizers of the Pride in the Park event say that no American flags were removed while hoisting their own flag.

I bet that flag is a poke to some place else, too, Mr. Green. Kappa

 

[speculawyer]

Wait, that brings up another question. Weren't the Righties bitching about the MB taking over Egypt during that entire time? Thought they would be happy that they've been ousted?

Happy? Now they are being forced to think up new rationalizations as to why Obama is completely wrong.