Obama = Nero

[PearlWatson]

True. So if we're not sure what he was even doing during while Rome burned, why are we comparing him somehow to Obama? I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. Was Washington DC on fire? Could the DC fire dept not mobilize without Obama's order?

Could the Rome fire brigade not mobilize without Nero's order? Pretty sure they were state owned (previously they were privatized). I doubt every time Rome had a fire Nero had to give the order to put it out. People forget, Rome had a number of "smaller" localized leaders that made big decisions too.

I'm just trying to figure out what this thread is about.

 

[The Thriller]

Ah. Ok. Why am I not surprised....

 

[The Thriller]

I don't think Nero comes up in terms of worst emperor, rather just for what he famously supposedly did, which is to play the lyre while Rome burned. The story is obviously more convoluted than that, but that is the gist of it, and it is debatable if it really went down that way at all.

But Caligula? Come on, he was a party animal. In fact he did party with animals. Farm animals. Ok now I feel dirty.

In addition to being a party animal and taking other dudes' wives and sleeping with them... Afterwords reporting to all near him at the parties how good/bad she was....

Caligula destroyed statues, was fond of torturing and murdering someone just for the sport of it, prostituted his own sisters, declared a war against WMD's (the ocean), tried to declare his horse a consul (insulting the senate bigtime), and shut down granaries (killed who knows how many Romans).

 

[PearlWatson]

Ah. Ok. Why am I not surprised....

You were either playing dumb with your questions* or you haven't gotten past the stage in your mental development that you stop taking everything literally. Now I'm beginning to suspect the latter.

* Your questions:
So if we're not sure what he was even doing during while Rome burned, why are we comparing him somehow to Obama? I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. Was Washington DC on fire? Could the DC fire dept not mobilize without Obama's order?

 

[The Thriller]

If memory serves, isn't Suetonius about the only person that has recorded stuff about Caligula?

I believe Romans typically destroyed all records of condemned emperors. Which would explain why he (Caligula) doesn't have very many surviving records...

 

[The Thriller]

You were either playing dumb with your questions* or you haven't gotten past the stage in your mental development that you stop taking everything literally. Now I'm beginning to suspect the latter.

* Your questions:
So if we're not sure what he was even doing during while Rome burned, why are we comparing him somehow to Obama? I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. Was Washington DC on fire? Could the DC fire dept not mobilize without Obama's order?

Ah.

So in your responses since my questions you provided a tripod logo...

And are now insulting my intellect.

Here's a wild concept, how about you explain yourself and the reason why this thread was necessary? What the hell is it even about? Because this Nero and Obama don't seem to have anything in common. And all the pictures with Rome on fire with crappy photo-shopped Obama pictures, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

 

[PearlWatson]

Ah.

So in your responses since my questions you provided a tripod logo...

And are now insulting my intellect.

Here's a wild concept, how about you explain yourself and the reason why this thread was necessary? What the hell is it even about? Because this Nero and Obama don't seem to have anything in common. And all the pictures with Rome on fire with crappy photo-shopped Obama pictures, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

I thought you were just being "goofy" (not the literal goofy character) with your questions but apparently not.

 

[babe]

I thought you were just being "goofy" (not the literal goofy character) with your questions but apparently not.

I'm sorta on Thriller's side here. It's great to be able to shop around for some provocative examples of creative pic building, but come on. There's gotta be some actually substantive "change" Obama has done that we're all proud of, right?

We always give our President a sorta "Honeymoon" for a year or two, where we all as Americans unite in Kumbaya singing group hugs, don't we?

And DC isn't actually burning to the ground, and even Republicans freshly elected are there trying to go along to get along with the old ways. Even they have been going to the White House when invited, and being respectful to our Pres.

 

[LogGrad98]

Ah.

So in your responses since my questions you provided a tripod logo...

And are now insulting my intellect.

Here's a wild concept, how about you explain yourself and the reason why this thread was necessary? What the hell is it even about? Because this Nero and Obama don't seem to have anything in common. And all the pictures with Rome on fire with crappy photo-shopped Obama pictures, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

I guess I am out of the loop as I have no idea why Tripod is a bad thing.


Also yes the Romans did not keep official records of what they viewed as failed emperors. Almost all we know of Caligula is from Seutonius and a few surviving anecdotal tales from obscure writers. Interesting character though, gotta give him that.

 

[PearlWatson]

How come I'm not one of your "thinkers"? Damn, I wasted my education by not studying how to draw cartoons.

Actually, Our President can be no better than his backers/managers. . . . the little clique of big campaign financiers and their "think tanks". It's not Obama's fault, it's because the "think tanks" have tanked.

It is more about photoshop and the like rather than drawing. There are people with some real talent in this regard.

I don't ignore your contributions to the tank, but they may get drowned out by consensus. If you don't agree with the clique you must be punished in some way, right?

 

[PearlWatson]

Who or what are your thinkers?

I wish I could tell you but seeing as liberals are into the politics of personal destruction I dare not reveal them.

 

[PearlWatson]

I'm sorta on Thriller's side here. It's great to be able to shop around for some provocative examples of creative pic building, but come on. There's gotta be some actually substantive "change" Obama has done that we're all proud of, right?

We always give our President a sorta "Honeymoon" for a year or two, where we all as Americans unite in Kumbaya singing group hugs, don't we?

And DC isn't actually burning to the ground, and even Republicans freshly elected are there trying to go along to get along with the old ways. Even they have been going to the White House when invited, and being respectful to our Pres.

You can't see all the "fires" he has contributed to in between his parties, golfing, and vacations? This thread is a blank slate for you to come up with just one of the many fires. It was all in vogue to hate on Bush for everything that went wrong during his tenure but everyone poops bricks if there is any criticism of the noobcake.

 

[babe]

You can't see all the "fires" he has contributed to in between his parties, golfing, and vacations? This thread is a blank slate for you to come up with just one of the many fires. It was all in vogue to hate on Bush for everything that went wrong during his tenure but everyone poops bricks if there is any criticism of the noobcake.

I don't know anything about the history of various contributors in here. I haven't gone back to research the old flames. I don't expect anyone to actually agree with me, and the value of my comments in here might be mainly in the responses I get, as they might in some way provide information relevant to my thinking either pro or con, both of which I find helpful.

If I want to talk to walls and listen to echos, I don't need a discussion forum. If I want to paste a lot of bumper stickers on my car I can do that too, without this forum, and probably about a hundred times as many people will see them, considering all the driving I do.

As you know, I am not a partisan republican, and I find some things of value in some democrats as well as republicans. Mostly, my inclinations go to the Libertarian party more, but I am actually registered for the Constitution Party and have run as a candidate on that ticket, although I find a lot of the folks in that party pretty archaic.

We have ways to fix things in regular Constitutional procedures like amendments. We just don't need to ignore it, no matter how good our reasons may seem.

Obama is not a Nero. At the time the blessed event of Rome's fall occurred, it was mostly a Christian state with few folks who cared to go on fighting. And even after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Christians remained in control principally because of their social cohesiveness and character. The raiders found no reason to stay, or else converted to Christianity themselves.

Nero had no army, and there really was nothing more he could have done.

For a god-fearing Bible-believing Christian trying to teach her children the ideals of the American Revolution, you know, individual freedom and liberty from governmental interference, obsttruction, oppression and taxes, it may seem that Obama is one of the godless horde sacking America. The fact that he is a mere puppet, a tool for the bankers/globalist/megalomaniacal world-shaper fascist/socialist ideologues/elitists means whatever rhetoric he throws out about "change" for the sake of the ordinary people is just worthless throwaway soundbites.

We should all hope the dems will soon realize that their voter base is abandoning the socialist "safety net" of unfunded obligations and realize it's in their true basic interest to view the people as taxpayers, not spongebobs entitled to everything the taxpayers have.

 

[franklin]

If you want to be taken serious then all you have to do is delete your Millsapa account and continue your genuine contributions.

 

[VINYLONE]

Propaganda? You decide.

SOURCE

U.S. Sends Conflicting Signals On Gay Marriage Law
by NINA TOTENBERG

Listen to the Story

March 1, 2011

The Obama administration says it will continue to deny health care benefits to the same-sex legal spouse of a federal court employee despite the fact that it has abandoned its court arguments in support of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Known as DOMA, the 1996 law bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. On Monday, the administration took the latest in a series of convoluted actions relating to the statute.

Last week, the administration stirred up a tempest in the legal community when it notified Congress that it would no longer defend DOMA as constitutional.

It was the first time the administration has notified congress of a refusal to defend a statute in court. The administration's approach differed markedly from the way it dealt with the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which the administration did defend in court, but persuaded Congress to repeal. Dealing with DOMA, the administration did the opposite. It has abandoned the law in court, but has not asked Congress to repeal it.

An 'Incoherent' Switch?

Until last week, the administration had defended DOMA, but Walter Dellinger, who served as solicitor general in the Clinton administration, contends that throwing in the towel was the right course for the administration at this point.

He notes that the administration for the first time was going to have to articulate whether a law that singles out homosexuals for different treatment should be treated with special skepticism by the courts. The Justice Department "was going to have to argue that" there had "been no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," Dellinger says. And, given a legislative record replete with comments hostile to homosexuals, "that is an argument that neither the president nor the attorney general believe."

Harvard law professor Charles Fried, who served as solicitor general in the Reagan administration, calls the administration's rationale for switching positions "incoherent." Although Fried says his personal view is that the law is unconstitutional, the Justice Department, he maintains, is duty-bound to defend any federal law as long as some reasonable argument can be made to support it — even though the argument may ultimately be a losing one.

"The reasonable argument is that, in terms of tradition and in terms of the view of the majority of the people of the United States, marriage is between one man and one woman," Fried says.

Benefits For Same-Sex Couple

In notifying Congress of its decision not to defend DOMA in court, the Obama administration said it would continue to enforce the law so that Congress could defend the law if it wishes to in court. In other words, the administration said it would, with one hand, enforce the law in order to preserve a legal case for Congress to defend; but at the same time, the administration would tell the courts it believes the law is unconstitutional.

Thus, in Monday's California case, the administration said the federal Office of Personnel Management would continue to deny health care benefits to the legal, same-sex spouses of federal court employees. Last week, the administration said the Internal Revenue Service would refuse to recognize the marital status of an 81-year-old widow who in 2007 legally married her female partner of 44 years. The IRS action means the widow owes $360,000 in estate taxes that would not be owed if her spouse were a man.

Some former Justice Department officials are critical of this two-track approach, contending that if a president really thinks a law is unconstitutional, he should not enforce it.

Shannen Coffin, who served in the Bush Justice Department and as counsel to former Vice President Dick Cheney, says "it seems incongruous to conclude that the administration will continue to enforce a statute that they have found flatly unconstitutional."

Coffin agrees, however, that the issue of enforcement is something of a "conundrum" that forces the president to either take apparently contradictory positions or usurp the power of the legislature by unilaterally refusing to enforce a law.

George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr also contends that "the administration is in an impossible situation" because "they're going to get criticized no matter what they do, depending on what political interest is offended by their decision."

Precedent

While the administration's DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr's deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

 

[PearlWatson]

Thanks, vinyl. I would consider Obama's refusal to uphold/defend a law as part of the "fires." I think it goes hand in hand with refusing to recognize that Obamacare has been voided, dropping the King Shabazz case, suing Arizona over their immigration law, ignoring the ruling on the oil moratorium in the Gulf, etc.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Far be it for me to point out that the title of this thread was spelled wrong, but I think it's supposed to read:

Obama=Negro.


I think it's safe to say we can all move on now.

 

[PearlWatson]

If you want to be taken serious then all you have to do is delete your Millsapa account and continue your genuine contributions.

You've done a complete reversal franky:

I've found Millsapa to be quite genuine

 

[babe]

You've done a complete reversal franky:

Sorry, Millsapa. But you missed the point here. Usually folks are having to tell me "Dude, it's not about you." This time it was.

If I were you I'd keep that "genuine" quote in my scrapbook. Franklin is just wrong about me this time. I reflected on my post which he/she was responding to and decided I got too flippant at the end, and re-did it.

 

[franklin]

True. I like to encourage good behavior rather than attack the bad, but your trolling has progressed to a point that I have no real interest in encouraging much of anything. It's too bad because you're funny as hell when you're not putting carrots on a stick.