What’s your new stance on SSM?
It’s correct social policy, and should be enacted by every state legislature.
Take heart in the fact that in a few years he’ll be a civilian. You, on the other hand, will be a lifelong douchebag.
A nitpick, a quibble, a minor point, perhaps, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
The President is a civilian. Rather the whole point, given the inclinations and limitations of the military mindset. Yes, Col. Jessup, I need those armed men on the wall, standing their watch. But I am entirely content that they are under the orders of a man who never completed basic training.
You know, it’s one thing to go after Obama in a partisan manner. Partisans gotta be partisan. But Michelle? She’s clearly a very intelligent woman doing her best to take the back seat and do all the “First Lady Things” she has to do with as much grace and good humor as she can. It’s probably driving her batty 50% of the time, or more. I do not envy her her job.
Yeah, that’s pretty unique to Teabilly attacks. Even at the height of anti-Bush insults, I don’t recall the left lobbing personal insults at his wife.
You know, she killed a guy.
Hey, what happens in Reno stays in Reno!
It happened with Hillary Clinton, too.
I guess it still happens, but I won’t count that since she’s been a Senator and Sec. of State since then and fair game for her own actions.
I recall both Presidents Bush called for more civility in political discourse. Which was of course taken by some of their supporters to mean bashing the wives of their respective successors. Major disconnect there.
Eisenhower, I recall, as president made a point of not returning soldiers’ salutes – because, as a career soldier, he knew that was improper for a civilian to do. Later presidents seem to have forgotten that . . .
He’s the commander-in-chief, and the military is required to salute him. He can return it if he wants to. That said, the modern tradition appears to have started with Reagan.
Eisenhower was so dedicated to the principle of military subordination to civil government, in fact, that he considered it improper to vote while serving as a soldier, or so my Dad once told me.
Not just Presidents. There was that recent “outrage” about Obama not returning a salute from a Marine.
These days, the POTUS salutes a member of the military in uniform, or there’s hell to pay from the hoi-polloi.
To follow up on this comment – for the most part, even the leftists here that I consider to hold loony economic ideas are not woo-filled nutcases across the board. While the board is very sympathetic to claims that involve settling income inequality with massive redistribution, it comes down very hard on midwives that recommend Stevia, acupuncture and massage for a pregnant woman who’s lost her amoniotic fluid. That kind of fuzzy thinking is routinely pilloried, and I am glad to see it.
I guess it depends on what you mean by massive redistribution, but generally, ‘redistribution’ is taken to mean taking money from rich people via taxation, and handing that money to people further down the economic ladder.
I doubt that very many posters here favor that on a massive scale.
Now if by ‘massive redistribution’ you mean providing good public services for all, and taxing the rich more heavily in order to pay for those services, I think that’s a position favored by pretty much all of our left-of-center posters, but it seriously stretches the meaning of the term.
More like they realize the inevitable partisan response: “Durr! Obummer hates the troops so much he won’t even return their salute!”
Meh, it’s easy to make broad, vague accusations about “the board”. Personally, I doubt “the board” is sympathetic to claims to settle income inequality, which sounds to me like something permanent, i.e. communism.
Its almost this simple: we have built a consumer economy. Not crazy about that, but there it is. If the consumers don’t have money, we have no economy. Therefore, some mechanism must be constructed so that money flows into the hands of people who will spend it buying our loud, shiny crap.
Otherwise, our economy will center around gated communities, and for-profit prisons. I am open to suggestions as to how that mechanism be constructed, but it must be done. It isn’t working, if we don’t fix it, we are boned. Period. Full stop.
Am I the only guy who thought that was hot? And Laura’s such a purty li’l thang…
Can anybody please help a EU hillbilly like me with figuring out was this is all about? 
(well I know my Johnny Cash, so you don’t have to explain the Reno part)