Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Addresses HRC  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19734 posts, RR: 59
Posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign last night. HRC is an organization that works to grant basic human rights like marriage, parenting rights, and protection from discrimination to the LGBT community.

I hear a lot of words from him but I am very worried that we will suffer again what we did under Clinton. He talked the talk, but when it came time to walk the walk, we got swept under the rug.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYHm0RyCyfU&feature=player_embedded#

He's got the Shepherd legislation through the House, but I think he overpromised when he said that it will pass the Senate and he will sign it into law. There are a lot of angry Republicans out there who have no issue using us as a pawn.

I'm wondering about his promises. He's made a lot of them. I like the ones he's made, but I am beginning to wonder if he can deliver.

My rights are the most important thing to me, more important than my life. Nobody will dictate to me my private behavior, my beliefs, or my speech. That does, perhaps make me a "single-issue" voter. It sucks to not have a real choice.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePilotsmoe From United States of America, joined May 2005, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

I think he's horrible at governing, like he's afraid of his own shadow, or pissing someone off. If he was only a little hard headed like bush.  Embarrassment

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1461 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign last night. HRC is an organization that works to grant basic human rights like marriage, parenting rights, and protection from discrimination to the LGBT community.

Considering the far more weighty human rights issues staring at Obama square in the face, for instance whether or not to allow the Taliban - among the most brutal, repressive and oppressive governments in history, to reassert itself in Afghanistan and re-enslave the population, most particularly women, I would much rather that the President spends more time deciding whether or not to take the advice of his military commanders in the field, or if he will listen to "General Joe" Biden.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19734 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1423 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):

Considering the far more weighty human rights issues staring at Obama square in the face, for instance whether or not to allow the Taliban - among the most brutal, repressive and oppressive governments in history, to reassert itself in Afghanistan and re-enslave the population, most particularly women, I would much rather that the President spends more time deciding whether or not to take the advice of his military commanders in the field, or if he will listen to "General Joe" Biden.

I don't think my civil rights come second to anyone's. And I don't think that attending to mine need take any significant time or money.


User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1421 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
I would much rather that the President spends

Of course ya would. Again, nothing is ever good enough. How do you know he is not discussing all these things with his advisors off the record? Not everything the man does is front page news. As for the LGBT community, i'm troubled by his decision to remove the DADT policy. I think it's just going to open the flood gates for discrimination in the military.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1408 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign last night. HRC is an organization that works to grant basic human rights like marriage, parenting rights, and protection from discrimination to the LGBT community.

First, to put it on the table, I'm a Conservative who could care less if you get married or adopt a child. I think you should be able to with the same ease straight folks have. (Surprised?).

"Basic human rights". That's the term you, and others, use. Too me, if you want to get over the hurdle, you need to prove why marriage and adoption is a basic human right. If you are able to prove that, you're golden.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I hear a lot of words from him but I am very worried that we will suffer again what we did under Clinton. He talked the talk, but when it came time to walk the walk, we got swept under the rug.

You know, with the stroke of a pen, he could strike down "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It would be a real gesture, not some symbolic speech, yet he doesn't do it. He's waffling and voting "present" again. He's good at talking the game, but he's empty. He's trying to straddle the line, but hasn't realized that as President of The United States, you don't get to do that.

While not an abomination (that some have called it) don't ask, don't tell is unfair and wrong. I laughed my butt off when it was introduced and then became more sober when I realized that it was going to actually be policy. It needs to go.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I'm wondering about his promises.

He tells groups what they want to hear. Sorry, I don't think he's your savior. He's, most certainly, not mine.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
I don't think my civil rights come second to anyone's.

And you're correct, they shouldn't. But when your civil rights enter upon the global scene...they will take a back seat to more weighty issue. That's just a fact of life. You already know that. You don't have to accept it, but you have to live with it.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
and protection from discrimination to the LGBT community

I struggle with this. These protections should already be built into the system. Additioinal protections begin to smack of protectionism. I don't know, I'm just not a fan of these kind of things. I hate "hate crime legislation", but that's another thread.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5279 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1390 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Considering the far more weighty human rights issues staring at Obama square in the face, for instance whether or not to allow the Taliban - among the most brutal, repressive and oppressive governments in history, to reassert itself in Afghanistan and re-enslave the population, most particularly women, I would much rather that the President spends more time deciding whether or not to take the advice of his military commanders in the field, or if he will listen to "General Joe" Biden.

So the basic civil rights of his own citizens, the ones who actually elect him, should be seen as secondary to the rights of the citizens of a foreign country? Given the mess we've made in Afghanistan, we should be concerned about what happens once we leave but that should not mean that we place domestic policy on the back burner in order to facilitate it.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):
I struggle with this. These protections should already be built into the system. Additioinal protections begin to smack of protectionism. I don't know, I'm just not a fan of these kind of things. I hate "hate crime legislation", but that's another thread.

But they are often not built into the system. We are not asking for additional protection, we are asking for EQUAL protection under the law. There are still States out there in which Doc and I can be terminated for no reason other than the fact that we are gay. None of us chooses to be gay, it is simply the hand that we are dealt and to be terminated for doing nothing other than being who we are is vile and reprehensible.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1379 times:



Quoting OA412 (Reply 6):
it is simply the hand that we are dealt and to be terminated for doing nothing other than being who we are is vile and reprehensible.

But, if you gain some protection, it will be more difficult for me to terminate Doc for being incompetent. I will have to jump through many more hoops to be sure that I can defend against the 'you fired me because I'm gay' accusation. Do you know how hard it is for me to fire a black employee? Or a female? Or some other protected 'class'?

When 'equal protection' is codified for a class of people, it is anything but equal.

This is why I struggle with any of these laws.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Hey Doc,

I stopped contributing to the HRC several years ago when it started dawning on me they were a do nothing organization. Last year's debacle in the state of California only solidified my disgust with them - they did not organize and they put very little money toward defeating the constitutional amendment. Instead I contribute money to political action committees that are targeted to defeat or enforce pro gay legislation. As for Barack Obama my money is in play with him too. Presently I have no interest in voting for his reelection based on his cowardly stance (the vast majority of Americans approve of allowing gays in the military and he could make that change with a pen) and most importantly, his stance on FISA and refusing to investigate torture that was committed during the previous administration.

Obama has done some pretty impressive things but there are some things I believe you stand up for whether they are politically expedient or not.

I'm not happy.


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1353 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):
you need to prove why marriage and adoption is a basic human right.

The United States Supreme Court has said over and over again that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1324 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
He talked the talk, but when it came time to walk the walk, we got swept under the rug.

Your not alone believe me.

You guys are still losing sight of the facts here. Obama is not who you should be speaking to, he was elected to be a commander and chief and he needs to begin to do that. DADT is not the issue either. If you want marriage rights lobby your governors and stop thinking the feds are going to do it.


User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2449 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

I didn't even want to hear him talk. On this issue I will criticize Obama for his inaction and nonchalance. I don't like people who talk a good game and then nothing, no action. I couldn't hardly be fussed to watch him speak, let alone go to any of these afterparties.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Considering the far more weighty human rights issues staring at Obama square in the face, for instance whether or not to allow the Taliban - among the most brutal, repressive and oppressive governments in history, to reassert itself in Afghanistan and re-enslave the population, most particularly women, I would much rather that the President spends more time deciding whether or not to take the advice of his military commanders in the field, or if he will listen to "General Joe" Biden.

Why should Obama, a US President, put the concerns of the Afghan population over the US GBLT population? Afghanistan needs to go.

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 4):
As for the LGBT community, i'm troubled by his decision to remove the DADT policy. I think it's just going to open the flood gates for discrimination in the military.

There is discrimination already. What would it change in that regard?

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):
"Basic human rights". That's the term you, and others, use. Too me, if you want to get over the hurdle, you need to prove why marriage and adoption is a basic human right. If you are able to prove that, you're golden.

Marriage and adoption are NOT the issue. The issue is equality in the treatment of classified groups of humans. Inherent in the term 'human rights' is the inference that, no human ever has to prove their rights to any other human. Because of the very nature that some more powerful groups in any given society choose to discriminate against minority groups makes this inference crucial to the rights of man. I prove myself to no man, and I defer to no earthly policy. I am a militant in that fact.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):
You know, with the stroke of a pen, he could strike down "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It would be a real gesture, not some symbolic speech, yet he doesn't do it. He's waffling and voting "present" again. He's good at talking the game, but he's empty. He's trying to straddle the line, but hasn't realized that as President of The United States, you don't get to do that.

Exactly, why does he not do this? Conservatives and Generals be damned in my view. I do not pander to any fool.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 7):
But, if you gain some protection, it will be more difficult for me to terminate Doc for being incompetent. I will have to jump through many more hoops to be sure that I can defend against the 'you fired me because I'm gay' accusation. Do you know how hard it is for me to fire a black employee? Or a female? Or some other protected 'class'?

When 'equal protection' is codified for a class of people, it is anything but equal.

This is why I struggle with any of these laws.

Now that is ridiculous talking. Minority groups need protection because majority groups discriminate against them in the absence of law. In the absence of laws forcing and facilitating equality, the majority group (whether it be socio-economic, ethnic, academic, religious, sex orientation, or otherwise) will decline the rights and ways of the minority as a de facto standard. Laws are created by humans, neither are infallible. These laws are present to make up for human indiscretion and discriminatory de facto standards. If an employer needs to terminate an employee for being incompetent, I am sure they would have documentation to that effect. Their race, gender, or sex orientation is hardly relevant.


Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 8):
As for Barack Obama my money is in play with him too. Presently I have no interest in voting for his reelection based on his cowardly stance (the vast majority of Americans approve of allowing gays in the military and he could make that change with a pen) and most importantly, his stance on FISA and refusing to investigate torture that was committed during the previous administration.

Obama has done some pretty impressive things but there are some things I believe you stand up for whether they are politically expedient or not.

I'm not happy.

I am hardly happy on this either. You sound like you voted for him the first time, as did I. But do you honestly think a Republican is going to achieve goals where Obama may not? Perspective.

Obama, I understand there are other things to deal with, but realize that you have limited time with which to act. I am not optimistic.



oh boy!!!
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8283 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1294 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I hear a lot of words from him but I am very worried that we will suffer again what we did under Clinton. He talked the talk, but when it came time to walk the walk, we got swept under the rug.

Clinton walked the walk too early in his Presidency and it was Step One in the mid term election disaster. Clinton's only saving grace was that Colin Powell was around to temper the outcry a bit.

Things may have improved over the years - politically speaking - buy it is still giong to cause conservative emotions to go nuts. Guess you'd call that a Fox Flurry.

Let the man pick the best time politically to change things. that means he has to balance other priorities as well as the voting booth.


User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1274 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 11):
There is discrimination already. What would it change in that regard?

To the fact that people would now know who they gays and lesbians are. It could be more discrimination on them



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1264 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 11):
I am hardly happy on this either. You sound like you voted for him the first time, as did I. But do you honestly think a Republican is going to achieve goals where Obama may not? Perspective.

Well, Obama isn't getting my campaign contributions because his pollsters think I won't have a better choice. I'll be looking at third party candidates and yes, if I can find a true conservative, not one of the ridiculous authoritarians who pose as Republicans these days (someone similar to Jack Kemp), I might very well throw my weight behind such a candidate. If there is a Democratic primary challenger, I will keep my mind open to that possibility.

The only way to get the current president's attention is to put his future into play.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11660 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1252 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
If you want marriage rights lobby your governors and stop thinking the feds are going to do it.

If that is how you feel, then how do you feel about Defense of Marriage Act? Why was that up on the federal level?

Quoting OA412 (Reply 6):
We are not asking for additional protection, we are asking for EQUAL protection under the law. There are still States out there in which Doc and I can be terminated for no reason other than the fact that we are gay.

That is something people don't get: EQUAL is not the same as SPECIAL. In Oregon, I was fired from one job for being gay. It was back in the day, so I could do nothing about it. The only way they found out about it is my best friend and I would gossip about us and the other gays in town. Nothing graphic and there were no other customers around. Just he, I, and the security camera. Was that fair?

Another thing I don't understand about DADT is: there are already gays serving in the military. There are gays serving openly in most Western militaries. Have those nations crumbled? What would happen when DADT is abolished, considering the fact that there are already gays serving. Some have been serving for years. How would that collapse everything?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1202 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 13):
To the fact that people would now know who they gays and lesbians are. It could be more discrimination on them

So you're OK continuing a practice, which I feel, is unfair to many of our service people because other folks may discriminate? Why don't we address the discrimination and not hope to cover it up and hide it with DaDt? I realize that proving discrimination may be difficult, but lifting this policy should be a no brainer. Why doesn't he just do it?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 11):
Now that is ridiculous talking.

No, it is not ridiculous. It is a very valid concern for those of us that have to make these types of decisions. It is extremely difficult to fire a 'protected' class member for cause because of these 'equal protection' laws. They do not provide equal protection, they are protectionist, plain and simple.

When I have to terminate someone, for cause, I have to satisfy my contractual obligations with respect to our collective bargaining agreement. But when I look to terminate a member of a protected class, I have to also include HR in the process (to a larger extent than if it was a white male) and satisfy their concerns which are typically of a much higher standard. How is that fair?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19734 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1186 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 5):

And you're correct, they shouldn't. But when your civil rights enter upon the global scene...they will take a back seat to more weighty issue.

Yeah, that's what they told the Blacks. That there were more pressing issues to deal with.

Fact is, a swish of a pen and it's done. So I don't buy that excuse. The problem is a lack of desire on the parts of those who consider themselves in a position to judge what I can and can't do because they think they are better than I am.


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1186 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Fact is, a swish of a pen and it's done. So I don't buy that excuse. The problem is a lack of desire on the parts of those who consider themselves in a position to judge what I can and can't do because they think they are better than I am.

That's right, just a pen-stroke and DaDt is gone. But he hasn't done it? Why? And to tell you the truth, if he does tonight, it's too late. He should have done it as soon as practical after assuming responsibility for the government, but he's vacilated to the point where any gesture will be seen as pandering.

Your last sentence pretty much sums up the majority, if not this entire administration and too many on the other side of the aisle. They really do think they're better than we are.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Yeah, that's what they told the Blacks. That there were more pressing issues to deal with.

I didn't say it was right, just that it happens and you do have to live with it (unless you want to hit the streets and get the Selma treatment)...because they're 'better' than us. Then again, that might be a good idea, you can join the Tea Partyers.

I'm really not making light of the situation, just commenting on the helplessness you guys must feel and what we feel on so many other issues on the table right now (and in the foreseeable future).



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13609 posts, RR: 61
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 16):
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 11):
Now that is ridiculous talking.

No, it is not ridiculous. It is a very valid concern for those of us that have to make these types of decisions. It is extremely difficult to fire a 'protected' class member for cause because of these 'equal protection' laws. They do not provide equal protection, they are protectionist, plain and simple.

When I have to terminate someone, for cause, I have to satisfy my contractual obligations with respect to our collective bargaining agreement. But when I look to terminate a member of a protected class, I have to also include HR in the process (to a larger extent than if it was a white male) and satisfy their concerns which are typically of a much higher standard. How is that fair?

 checkmark 

Speaking from experience, this is absolutely correct. While you cannot just fire someone without cause (the "just cause vs. 'just cuz' argument), you have to have not only cause, but also take steps to satisfy any concerns from HR and Legal before proceeding with discharging an employee of a protected class.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19734 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1186 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):


Speaking from experience, this is absolutely correct. While you cannot just fire someone without cause (the "just cause vs. 'just cuz' argument), you have to have not only cause, but also take steps to satisfy any concerns from HR and Legal before proceeding with discharging an employee of a protected class.

Speaking from experience, it is far more a matter of the individual organization and union rules than anything else.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1186 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 15):
If that is how you feel, then how do you feel about Defense of Marriage Act? Why was that up on the federal level?

You mean the law that Clinton signed? That was only done so other states weren't forced to recognize same sex marriage from a state that did.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19734 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1186 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 21):

You mean the law that Clinton signed? That was only done so other states weren't forced to recognize same sex marriage from a state that did.

That statement would be far easier to believe if that law had a different name. The law wasn't about states' rights; the law was about the federal government defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1186 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
The law wasn't about states' rights; the law was about the federal government defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman

Which means nothing at the end of the day because marriage is like gun rights or the drinking age, governed by the states not the fed. It simply gaves states the backing not to honor gay marriage is another site has. Has nothing to do with the fed believing gays shouldn't marry they just wanted each state to make it's own decision on the matter.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19734 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1186 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 23):

Which means nothing at the end of the day because marriage is like gun rights or the drinking age, governed by the states not the fed. It simply gaves states the backing not to honor gay marriage is another site has. Has nothing to do with the fed believing gays shouldn't marry they just wanted each state to make it's own decision on the matter.

Then why wasn't it named the "Defense of States' Rights Act?" Helms wasn't exactly subtle with this bill.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13609 posts, RR: 61
Reply 25, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):


Speaking from experience, this is absolutely correct. While you cannot just fire someone without cause (the "just cause vs. 'just cuz' argument), you have to have not only cause, but also take steps to satisfy any concerns from HR and Legal before proceeding with discharging an employee of a protected class.

Speaking from experience, it is far more a matter of the individual organization and union rules than anything else.

 redflag 

It's not, sorry. EVERY organization is concerned with potentially getting sued by a worker using these laws as a shield, resulting in far more documentation and evidence being required to move forward with discipline or discharge than if the employee were of a non-protected group.

Yes, union rules do play a role on occasion, but frankly the presence of 'equal protection' laws, in practice, actually results in artificially extending the employment of workers whose non-protected-class counterparts with similar performance issues would already have been discharged.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Man Sells Anti-Obama Merchandise-Forced To Close posted Tue Sep 29 2009 11:01:51 by JBirdAV8r
Facebook Pulls "Kill Obama" Poll posted Mon Sep 28 2009 16:55:47 by FuturePilot16
Obama, Gen. McChrystal Talk Only Once posted Mon Sep 28 2009 07:54:48 by KC135TopBoom
Obama/Duncan: Kids Will Spend More Hours In School posted Mon Sep 28 2009 07:41:47 by Aaron747
Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II posted Sat Sep 26 2009 14:38:53 by LipeGIG
Obama To World: U.S. Can't Fix All posted Wed Sep 23 2009 07:44:45 by FuturePilot16
Pres. Obama Asks Gov. Paterson Not To Run posted Sun Sep 20 2009 07:07:54 by KC135TopBoom
7 CIA Heads To Obama: Stop Abuse Investigations posted Sat Sep 19 2009 07:49:27 by Elite
Pres. Obama Hands Out First Medal Of Honor posted Fri Sep 18 2009 07:06:17 by Aaron747
Obama To Be On TV More - Health Care Reform posted Thu Sep 17 2009 12:48:00 by Homer71