Advertisement

F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

topic posted Wed, April 22, 2009 - 12:50 AM by  d'zoner
Share/Save/Bookmark
what if the left was as lockstep robotic as the right was with bush?

where the FUCK does obama get off dictating people are off limits for investigation no matter the emerging evidence of crimes.

where the FUCK does obama get off aiding and abetting felonies?

he is going to a really bad place really fast with the whole rule of law and letting justice take it course thing.

a REALLY bad place.

posted by:
d'zoner
Advertisement
  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 12:55 AM
    yeah I like how he casually threw out any pretense of independence on the part of the DOJ. just as well, its totally a tool of the executive branch. just look at the Harman story how Gonzo stopped the FBI from opening a case because she was supporting Bushco's legislative priorities:

    www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...-changes-tune

    Reports in Congressional Quarterly and the New York Times indicate that a National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap authorized by the FISA Court recorded Rep. Jane Harman trading political favors with a suspected Israeli agent. When the FBI attempted to open a criminal investigation into the matter, Attorney General Gonzales allegedly intervened because he "'needed Jane' to help support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program."
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:02 AM
      Israeli intelligence is pretty entrenched in US society. Its going to take time before we can root them all out. I am certain there are more of them acting as operatives on the payroll on US soil.

      I know Israel is an ally, but I oppose allowing foreign intelligence to commit illegal acts or manipulate public opinion, even if they are from a supposedly friendly nation.
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:04 AM
        its not just israel. everybody spies on everybody. us intel is overseas wiretapping all our "allies". we wiretap all the UN delegates. chinese are running operations on us soil to steal technology. french like to spy too. etc.
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Sat, April 25, 2009 - 5:38 AM
          >its not just israel. everybody spies on everybody.

          Governments wouldn't be meeting a basic responsibility to their peoples if they did not.

          Nations are only as friendly as they can be without subverting their own national interests.

          And that's just reasonable.
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Wed, April 22, 2009 - 2:29 AM
        <Israeli intelligence is pretty entrenched in US society.>

        Wait...what? What does this have to do with "Israeli intelligence", and moreso - care to prove this?

    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:16 AM
      <yeah I like how he casually threw out any pretense of independence on the part of the DOJ.>

      and had it so casually accepted by the msm and a chunk of the left not to mention how the right immediately took advantage of obama's ambiguity to frame the argument as how it was not the torture that was wrong, it was REVEALING the torture that was wrong.

      just like bush and rove politicized everything, so too are obama and emmanual and integrity and justice be damned. and just as with bush and rove, that path leads to a bad end.

      the only saving grace in the situation is there is a solid core of the left including such prominent and influential national media figures like olbermann and maddow that put his ass on the hot seat, immediately, when he goes to a bad place.


      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:28 AM
        i wouldn't know since i basically only consume news over the web. thank god i don't have to listen to the idiots in the pundit class other than maybe 5 minutes on cnn or npr.
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Wed, April 22, 2009 - 6:37 AM
      >yeah I like how he casually threw out any pretense of independence on the part of the DOJ.

      Only in the la la land you live in. In the real world he affirmed the independence of the DOJ. But let's not let reality interfere in your little histrionics party.
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Wed, April 22, 2009 - 9:35 AM
        <>yeah I like how he casually threw out any pretense of independence on the part of the DOJ.

        Only in the la la land you live in. In the real world he affirmed the independence of the DOJ. But let's not let reality interfere in your little histrionics party.>

        what la la land? obama stated publicly he doesn't intend to prosecute anyone in the cia or those that originated, justified or authorized the torture. that he later had to backtrack and acknowledge it was reallly up to the justice department doesn't change the fact he FIRST declared everyone involved off limits to prosecution, ergo it was HIS decision to make.

        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Wed, April 22, 2009 - 11:07 AM
          Actually, what he stated was that they didn't intend to prosecute those who faithfully followed the legal advice of the white house, ala the olc memo's. Since they clearly did not follow said advice, and since it's looking increasingly likely that there will be prosecutions, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what all the hand-wringing is about.

          It occurs to me that the way he's playing it is really pretty smart. It would be one thing if it appeared he was pushing these investigations, but it's quite another thing politically when the appearance is that he's being pushed into them. I have no idea if that was the plan all along, or if that's just the way it's working out, but either way I'd say it's working out pretty well.

          Rather than complaining about a statement he made, why not celebrate the fact the memo's have been released, the cats now thoroughly out of the bag, and prosecutions as well as a congressional investigation are looking likely?
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Wed, April 22, 2009 - 11:45 AM
            <<Actually, what he stated was that they didn't intend to prosecute those who faithfully followed the legal advice of the white house, ala the olc memo's.

            Which is completely logical in my opinion.

            <<It occurs to me that the way he's playing it is really pretty smart. It would be one thing if it appeared he was pushing these investigations, but it's quite another thing politically when the appearance is that he's being pushed into them.

            I had the same thought last night. And he very well may employ this tactic throughout his presidency, it helps with the appearance of politicising contentious issues.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Wed, April 22, 2009 - 12:01 PM
            "Actually, what he stated was that they didn't intend to prosecute those who faithfully followed the legal advice of the white house, ala the olc memo's. Since they clearly did not follow said advice, and since it's looking increasingly likely that there will be prosecutions, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what all the hand-wringing is about."

            First, that is the Nuremberg defense. Second, if they didn't follow the advice of the OLC, then why are the lawyers from the OLC being prosecuted?

            Sure there was revelation that there was dissenting opinion in the OLC, but the majority view appears to have followed the reasoning in the Yoo torture memo


            "It occurs to me that the way he's playing it is really pretty smart. It would be one thing if it appeared he was pushing these investigations, but it's quite another thing politically when the appearance is that he's being pushed into them. I have no idea if that was the plan all along, or if that's just the way it's working out, but either way I'd say it's working out pretty well."

            Unfortunately, it became politacized the moment he commented on the prosecution, at all. Because that gives the impression (correct or not) that he is making the calls, and not Holder
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Wed, April 22, 2009 - 12:28 PM
              >First, that is the Nuremberg defense. Second, if they didn't follow the advice of the OLC, then why are the lawyers from the OLC being prosecuted?

              Actually it's not a "defense" at all. A legal defense only exists within the context of a prosecution. Prosecutors are not required to pursue every case that comes across their desks, and the basis for those decisions can be anything from politics, the popularity of the defendant, the current budget, current workload, an assessment of the likelihood of getting a conviction, or even just that they're not in the mood right now. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and in the eyes of the law these people are all innocent.

              >Unfortunately, it became politacized the moment he commented on the prosecution, at all. Because that gives the impression (correct or not) that he is making the calls, and not Holder

              I think it gives the opposite impression if prosecutions do indeed happen.
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Wed, April 22, 2009 - 12:45 PM
                "Actually it's not a "defense" at all. A legal defense only exists within the context of a prosecution. Prosecutors are not required to pursue every case that comes across their desks, and the basis for those decisions can be anything from politics, the popularity of the defendant, the current budget, current workload, an assessment of the likelihood of getting a conviction, or even just that they're not in the mood right now. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and in the eyes of the law these people are all innocent."

                He is saying that these people are not prosecutable because they were following orders.

                That's a defense.

                Sure, it might not happen in a court room, but it doesn't change the nature of the remarks and what it is referring to.


                "I think it gives the opposite impression if prosecutions do indeed happen. "

                Just because the position has changed, for what ever reason, that doesn't mean the issue wasn't politicised. that just means circumstances surrounding it has changed
                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                  Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:19 PM
                  No. He never said they weren't prosecutable.Never even implied that.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:29 PM
                    "No. He never said they weren't prosecutable.Never even implied that. "

                    From the BBC: "Mr Obama gave an assurance that "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice... will not be subject to prosecution".

                    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003537.stm
                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                      Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:31 PM
                      Like I said, never said they weren't prosecutable. Never even implied that.
                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                        Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:35 PM
                        "Like I said, never said they weren't prosecutable. Never even implied that. "

                        Then what does "will not be subject to prosecution" mean, exactly?
                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                          Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:43 PM
                          Well, it's English... it's a pretty simple phrase... not sure why you need basic english explained, but--

                          "Will" is an expression of what he's saying is going to happen... "not" negates the following phrase... "Subject to" means being put in the position to be... "prosecuted" means formally charged and tried.

                          "Will not be subject to..." does NOT mean, "Cannot be subject to..."

                          Get it?
                          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                            Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:52 PM
                            "Get it?"

                            No, because he is the POTUS.

                            That gives his words a bit more authority and weight. After all, he does appoint the head of the DOJ and even though, ideally, it is an independent organization, his view will undoubtedly influence their decision.

                            So due to that, this comes off as a bit of pointless word parsing.

                            But if it is a view you are satisfied with, I guess it's best to agree to disagree, at this point
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Wed, April 22, 2009 - 2:04 PM
                              Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean words mean different things when he says them. It's far from pointless word parsing to point out that there's a difference between stating an intention to do or not do something and stating that it's not possible to do or not do something. If I, or you, or the POTUS, or any english speaking person on the planet earth, says they "will not" do something that doesn't mean the same as "I cannot" do something.

                              But this whole thing is really irrelevant. No matter how you try to twist it, stating an intention to not prosecute, even if he had said they were not prosecutable, is not the Nuremberg defense. It's not a defense at all. It's a statement of his intention to either prosecute or not.

                              Nor, BTW, is any of this the Nuremberg defense. The Nuremburg defense is a defense which says, "I was just following orders." No one has even come near to making that case here. I'm not aware of any evidence that they WERE "just following orders." I suspect they made their own decisions on how to carry out the interrogations, so the defense wouldn't even apply.

                              But again, this is a completely pointless conversation.
                              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                Wed, April 22, 2009 - 2:19 PM
                                "Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean words mean different things when he says them. It's far from pointless word parsing to point out that there's a difference between stating an intention to do or not do something and stating that it's not possible to do or not do something. If I, or you, or the POTUS, or any english speaking person on the planet earth, says they "will not" do something that doesn't mean the same as "I cannot" do something."

                                Ok, then I will change my original statement from:

                                <<<He is saying that these people are not prosecutable because they were following orders.

                                That's a defense.

                                Sure, it might not happen in a court room, but it doesn't change the nature of the remarks and what it is referring to.>>>

                                To: <<He is saying *he will* not prosecute these people because they were following orders

                                That's a defense.

                                Sure, it might not happen in a court room, but it doesn't change the nature of the remarks and what it is referring to.>>

                                Not really sure how that changes anything, but I am open to discussion

                                "But this whole thing is really irrelevant. No matter how you try to twist it, stating an intention to not prosecute, even if he had said they were not prosecutable, is not the Nuremberg defense. It's not a defense at all. It's a statement of his intention to either prosecute or not."

                                I disagree, simply due to the fact that the issue landed on someone's desk at the Office of Legal Council. It shows it was a matter discussed and ruled on. They are in a place of authority and they clarify on disputed matters in the executive branch






                                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                  Wed, April 22, 2009 - 4:06 PM
                                  Still not there. He said he will not prosecute because they were faithfully following the legal advice of the olc, nothing to do with "following orders." And it's still not a defense, neither in the legal sense (though maybe it could be) nor in the more general sense. He wasn't excusing or defending their actions--in fact he's made it quite clear what he thinks of waterboarding. He was merely stating an inention to not prosecute those who did faithfully follow the legal advice of the olc. If a prosecuter says, "I'm not going to press charges because...<fill in the blank> That doesn't constitute a legal defense. The prosecutor MIGHT cite a legal defense as a reason though, but I don't read that as what Obama was doing in this case.

                                  It actually COULD be a valid legal defense though. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat expresses the legal principle "Ignorance of the law excues no one." However there are limitations to that principle--

                                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igno...on_excusat

                                  "The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices.
                                  In the Criminal Law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentence, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada. Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge."

                                  But that also doesn't apply in this case since they clearly went well beyond even what the olc memo's advised. I suspect (and hope) that they will be prosecuted. More importantly, I strongly suspect the lawyers who drafted those memo's will be prosecuted for complicity. More importantly still, I suspect there will be a congressional investigation.

                                  >I disagree, simply due to the fact that the issue landed on someone's desk at the Office of Legal Council. It shows it was a matter discussed and ruled on. They are in a place of authority and they clarify on disputed matters in the executive branch

                                  Maybe I should have said it's irrelevant to me. What's relevant to me is what I wrote in the paragraph immediately above.
                                  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 4:55 PM
                                    "Still not there. He said he will not prosecute because they were faithfully following the legal advice of the olc, nothing to do with "following orders." And it's still not a defense, neither in the legal sense (though maybe it could be) nor in the more general sense. He wasn't excusing or defending their actions--in fact he's made it quite clear what he thinks of waterboarding."

                                    That is exactly what it is: a refutation of the call to prosecute these individuals.

                                    it's a defense


                                    "Maybe I should have said it's irrelevant to me. What's relevant to me is what I wrote in the paragraph immediately above."

                                    That was actually in reply to this:

                                    "Nor, BTW, is any of this the Nuremberg defense. The Nuremburg defense is a defense which says, "I was just following orders." No one has even come near to making that case here. I'm not aware of any evidence that they WERE "just following orders." I suspect they made their own decisions on how to carry out the interrogations, so the defense wouldn't even apply. "

                                    Sorry, quoted the wrong part of your response
                                  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 7:12 PM
                                    How do you resolve these two statements, Mystylprick?


                                    "Nor, BTW, is any of this the Nuremberg defense. The Nuremburg defense is a defense which says, "I was just following orders." No one has even come near to making that case here. I'm not aware of any evidence that they WERE "just following orders." I suspect they made their own decisions on how to carry out the interrogations, so the defense wouldn't even apply."

                                    "He was merely stating an inention to not prosecute those who did faithfully follow the legal advice of the olc. If a prosecuter says, "I'm not going to press charges because...<fill in the blank> That doesn't constitute a legal defense. The prosecutor MIGHT cite a legal defense as a reason though, but I don't read that as what Obama was doing in this case."

                                    Anyway its already been established Cheney was micromanaging the torture techniques used and Bush signed off directly. So your Bush fellatio is for naught.
                                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                      Wed, April 22, 2009 - 7:34 PM
                                      Someone got up on the wrong side of the coffin this morning. There's no need to resolve them since there's no contradiction in them. If your empty little head has imagined there is one, then please entertain us with your delusions.

                                      >Anyway its already been established Cheney was micromanaging the torture techniques used and Bush signed off directly.

                                      What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? That just means that Cheney is in line to be prosecuted himself if it gets that far. It doesn't change the fact that no one is claiming "we were just following orders" or that Obama's statement about not prosecuting CIA agents wasn't a "defense."

                                      Try the Sylvan Learning Center. I hear they have good programs for adult reading comprehension.
                                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                        Wed, April 22, 2009 - 10:23 PM
                                        You said

                                        "I suspect they made their own decisions on how to carry out the interrogations, so the defense wouldn't even apply"

                                        I just corrected you and indicated Cheney has said he was in fact directing them to waterboard. You then said

                                        "What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?"

                                        Are you really that stupid? Do I have to parse and requote every fucking thing you type?

                                        You seem incapable of keeping an argument straight from post to post. Try this: just shut up until you actually know something about a topic which you clearly do not in this case which is why you are talking about things that you "suspect" when anybody who's following even the headlines in this news story knows not to be the case.

                                        You lose mystletoad.
                                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                          Thu, April 23, 2009 - 9:00 AM
                                          >You seem incapable of keeping an argument straight from post to post. Try this: just shut up until you actually know something about a topic which you clearly do not in this case which is why you are talking about things that you "suspect" when anybody who's following even the headlines in this news story knows not to be the case.

                                          You're the one who can't seem to keep it straight. You put up two quotes of mine and asked me to reconcile them. They were not contradictory. You need some basic reading comprehension skills. You also corrected my impression that the interrogators made their own decisions on the details of how they conduct the interrogation, which may or may not be true but was irrelevant to what was being discussed. You pick on a minor, unimportant point as if it was important while running away from what you had just posted IMMEDIATELY ONE POST BEFORE. Again, your reading comprehension needs some work and you intellectual integrity needs some serious work.

                                          You still haven't explained how your empty little head came to the conclusion those two quotes were contradictory. You just avoid and spew irrelevancies.

                                          >You lose mystletoad.

                                          This is not a contest, and even if it is you are not the judge. Come back when you grow up
                                          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                            Thu, April 23, 2009 - 10:08 PM
                                            <You pick on a minor, unimportant point as if it was important while running away from what you had just posted IMMEDIATELY ONE POST BEFORE.>

                                            Here's some more latin for you, Myst: modus operandi. That's his way. His religion almost. He will ignore the parts of the argument that harm his later argument, pick upon later statements while hoping to see the old problems go away.

                                            <Certainly not in an international court where waterboarding is unambiguously illegal, but in a U.S. court they might get some traction by arguing that the law was ambiguous AND they were assured by the highest criminal investigation and enforcement agency in the land that it was legal. They could then, possibly, argue they had no Animus nocendi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animus_nocendi which is required to give a conviction.>

                                            You said it, bub.
                                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                        Fri, April 24, 2009 - 12:58 PM
                                        You know, Mystylplx, now that my emotions over the issue have cooled a bit, you make a great point about intent. But I still think that it isn't something Obama and Holden should be deciding on behind closed doors.

                                        We have public systems in this contry to decide on issue of guilt and innocence for a reason. And if these men and women are truly innocent and were actually mislead, then it is up to the public to decide that (it's too contention and effects too many people to be decided any other way). Not the administration

                                        There has been too much secrecy around this issue for too long, and it's time to come clean and lets the cards fall where they may
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Thu, April 23, 2009 - 2:52 AM
                              <<"Get it?">>

                              <No, because he is the POTUS.>

                              So that means that you now DO understand what Myst was obviously trying to say? You're saying that Obama should dumb shit down? Is that what you mean?

                              <So due to that, this comes off as a bit of pointless word parsing.>

                              Because YOU didn't get it the first time and it had to be explained to you, it's "pointless word parsing"? I got it - everyone else here obviously got it.

                              <So just because someone told them to do something and others said it was legal, that doesn't conclude that they were not responsible for their own actions,and the consequences that they carry.>

                              This was a fine point of law, not an obvious break in our laws. The operators are told what to do with an understanding - based upon our history - that what they are asked to do is lawful. They had no reason to believe that their chain of command was telling them to do something that was possibly illegal for them to do.

                              <They are not unthinking machines, and have a duty to refute any orders that are clearly questionable under the law.>

                              Our top lawyers are still arguing whether this was lawful or not, and you want the actual operators to question the instructions given to them on the grounds of some kind of possible lawfulness, ESPECIALLY since this was a presidential order, where the White House assured the CIA/Military that it was lawful, and the chain of command then was told that it was lawful...and you want the operator to decide the lawfulness of the orders that they are given? Really?

                              Again, they were not gas chamber operators...this was very gray, not so black and white.

                              You just want to make it black and white, but it's obviously NOT so.

                              This argument goes really well with Built to Spill's version of 'Cortez the Killer'.
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Wed, April 22, 2009 - 12:49 PM
                I should add that your remarks on prosecution seem out of line. Obama, in his statements, already identified why they would not be prosecuted: he said they were following orders

                Hence, the charge of politicization and questions about an independent justice department
                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                  Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:30 PM
                  >I should add that your remarks on prosecution seem out of line. Obama, in his statements, already identified why they would not be prosecuted: he said they were following orders

                  Not really. He said those who were acting on the legal advice given them by the administration would not be prosecuted. It's not a question of following orders, it's a question of the fact they were assured what they were doing was legal. And, again, prosecutors make judgement calls like that all the time. Perhaps he shouldn't have said it, but it seems to be working out OK.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:39 PM
                    "Not really. He said those who were acting on the legal advice given them by the administration would not be prosecuted. It's not a question of following orders, it's a question of the fact they were assured what they were doing was legal."

                    This sounds like a distinction without a difference, in this particular context.
                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                      Wed, April 22, 2009 - 1:45 PM
                      This whole conversation is a distinction without a difference.
                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                        Wed, April 22, 2009 - 2:02 PM
                        Well, the Office of Legal Council is in a place of authority. From my understanding, if a contentious issue reaches their desk (in this case an order to torture detainees) they then review it and deem if such an action is legal. Hence, my point about them following orders.

                        So just because someone told them to do something and others said it was legal, that doesn't conclude that they were not responsible for their own actions,and the consequences that they carry.

                        They are not unthinking machines, and have a duty to refute any orders that are clearly questionable under the law.
                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                          Wed, April 22, 2009 - 4:01 PM
                          "what if the left was as lockstep robotic as the right was with bush?"


                          Since when was the right in lockstep with Bush? It sounds like a good rallying cry for the far lefties, but untrue.
                          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                            Wed, April 22, 2009 - 4:20 PM
                            I can't get over it how much in a panic cheney is at the moment......

                            under the bush / cheney admin. they locked up several abu ghraib guards.......branding them as bad apples.

                            NOW that they face prosecution ...... they are screaming: " IT WAS IS LEGAL TO WATERBOARD AND BUILD SEXY PYRAMIDS...LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL.
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Wed, April 22, 2009 - 4:44 PM
                              <I can't get over it how much in a panic cheney is at the moment......>

                              if it comes to an actual trial the dicey decisions darthco made based on the political calculation they could get away with it by manipulating public opinion go out the window. if cheney (or whoever) ends up indicted there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide as the republican propaganda machine will have been neutralized and helpless to save his ass. he's looking at a real possibility of going behind bars.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 7:13 PM
                    >It's not a question of following orders,

                    Yes it is. Cheney and crew directed them to use those torture techniques. Quit lying.
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Wed, April 22, 2009 - 11:13 PM
                "I think it gives the opposite impression if prosecutions do indeed happen."


                Seems his own administration thought Obama was wrongly calling the shots on prosecution

                <<<On Sunday, Emanuel told ABC News that Obama would extend his immunity from prosecution beyond CIA officers to policymakers. He said the president believed "those who devised policy . . . should not be prosecuted either . . . . It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution."

                Yet by Monday afternoon, as Obama visited the CIA to assure officers there that they wouldn't be prosecuted, he was already facing questions from inside his own administration about how far he could or should go, as well as loud complaints from friends and allies in Congress and beyond.

                Inside, some administration officials raised concerns that Obama had overstepped proper legal boundaries by unilaterally declaring that the Justice Department would take no action.>>>
                www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66596.html
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Thu, April 23, 2009 - 2:45 AM
              <First, that is the Nuremberg defense.>

              Um, it's only the "Nuremberg defense". If the operators did not think that anything was wrong with it, if they thought that it was legal... The difference between this and gas chamber operators? A gulf.

              < Second, if they didn't follow the advice of the OLC, then why are the lawyers from the OLC being prosecuted?>

              Who is being prosecuted? Have they started to prosecute someone?

              <Unfortunately, it became politacized the moment he commented on the prosecution, at all. Because that gives the impression (correct or not) that he is making the calls, and not Holder>

              Who here doubts that Obama is "making the calls"? He's just letting Holder take the reins of any future prosecution.

              This could blow up in the Dem's facts and be a galvanizing force for the Right... Not a good prospect when the Right is a disparate, fractured, impotent and lost bunch at this point.
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Thu, April 23, 2009 - 1:26 PM
                >Um, it's only the "Nuremberg defense". If the operators did not think that anything was wrong with it, if they thought that it was legal... The difference between this and gas chamber operators? A gulf.

                Not even then. It's only the Nuremberg defense if their defense is that they were "just following orders." If their defense is that they were assured it was legal by the United States Department of Justice, that's a completely different defense. Neither defense holds any water though. Or not much. Certainly not in an international court where waterboarding is unambiguously illegal, but in a U.S. court they might get some traction by arguing that the law was ambiguous AND they were assured by the highest criminal investigation and enforcement agency in the land that it was legal. They could then, possibly, argue they had no Animus nocendi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animus_nocendi which is required to give a conviction.

                Of course all of this is just wild speculation until/if they are charged. Until then we won't know what their defense will be.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 4:30 PM
    Obama is within his rights to exercise his discretion in this matter.

    We have a long tradition of succeeding administrations not jailing the previous administration.
  • Obama changes his mind, again

    Fri, April 24, 2009 - 11:08 PM
    President Obama rebuffed calls for a commission to investigate alleged abuses under the Bush administration in fighting terrorism, telling congressional leaders at a White House meeting yesterday that he wants to look forward instead of litigating the past.

    www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...14.html
    • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

      Fri, April 24, 2009 - 11:50 PM
      Don't read too much into what anonymous secondhand sources said he said, other than the overarching point that he's opposed to a congressional commission, which I guess is true. There's still a chance congress will go ahead and do it anyway, and if not there's still a chance for a special prosecutor.

      But I think they'd have a hard time getting convictions with a special prosecutor, which is why I was hoping for a congressional truth commission.

      Damn!

      I get the point though. Maybe I was naive thinking congress could do this without it becoming a partisan circus.

      Ah fuck.
      • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

        Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:03 AM
        LOL you boyz are still at it eh? You think this Despot Nation leaders have a clue much less our citizens? Better go back and read the Brutus papers from some where around the 1700 or so you know durning the founding of our nation and crap like that.
        • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

          Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:11 AM
          Long time no see.
          • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

            Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:22 AM
            Yeah I know had to take time off to learn how to be an improper gimp lets say I am a rough edge disabled person LOL. But think I am happy with results this far you get one cranky nope the nation is going to the dogs real fast now.
            • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

              Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:27 AM
              As I recall you were never a proper anything ;) Glad your doing well. The nation has always been going to the dogs real fast, but somehow never seems to make it all the way.
              • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

                Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:31 AM
                Actually, it's the world and the youth that are constantly going to the dogs
                • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

                  Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:47 AM
                  Well some of them yes if you are a parent that depends upon the Government to to apply their approved state required tests and your child can pass them if not they are now scum. I choose pass the test and teach my sons to be human and take all views into account they are the dogs that can pass state imposed test then raise a higher question. Think about that fact our Children must now pass State and Fed imposed tests lust like the commies had to do back in the 1950's. Oh and we all have to have travel papers now and prove to get our drivers licensed renewed we are American Citizens?
      • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

        Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:29 AM
        "Don't read too much into what anonymous secondhand sources said he said, other than the overarching point that he's opposed to a congressional commission, which I guess is true. There's still a chance congress will go ahead and do it anyway, and if not there's still a chance for a special prosecutor."

        Wouldn't that be the point he changed his mind on. "again"?
        • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

          Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:45 AM
          Wasn't arguing the point. Never mind. It's late and I'm half sloshed.
          • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

            Sat, April 25, 2009 - 1:17 AM
            Congress is the worst place to handle this, if you want anything that appears reasonable.

            video.google.com/videoplay
            • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

              Sat, April 25, 2009 - 1:40 AM
              Well, so what happens if the DOJ looks at it and decides not to prosecute? Cuz with what we know now I don't see how they could get a conviction. They'd have to go after Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. I guess they could go after the lawyers, but it's gonna be hard to convict someone for offering a legal opinion even if it was wrong. And going after the three stooges takes it to a whole nother level. Politics galore. Huge mess.

              I looked at those memos again and the CIA agents didn't violate the advice as much as I had thought they had. I'm learning more about this every day, just like everyone else, so I keep going back and forth.

              I don't know. I was hoping for something like South Africa's TRC. But you're right of course. It was a stupid idea. Congress couldn't avoid politicizing it to the point it wouldn't have any meaning.

              Shit I'm tired. I'm going to bed.
              • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

                Sat, April 25, 2009 - 2:18 AM
                Obama passed the buck rather quickly to the Justice Dept to make it appear there is a separation of powers but are they really I think not. The entire system is now set up to support who ever has the most money and well control of the two major parties we are just the slaves that elect the elite I am in the process of making myself a LLP corps have different rights then private citizens plus you can get handouts even if you screw up shit really badly.
              • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

                Sat, April 25, 2009 - 12:07 PM
                "Well, so what happens if the DOJ looks at it and decides not to prosecute? Cuz with what we know now I don't see how they could get a conviction."

                I would expect a thorough and well documented explanation on why they weren't prosecuting. And I would expect that any such justification should be free of moral reasoning.

                And if it wasn't taken to through the courts, then it should be investigated through congress by forming a commission along the same lines as the 9/11 investigation


                "They'd have to go after Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. I guess they could go after the lawyers, but it's gonna be hard to convict someone for offering a legal opinion even if it was wrong. And going after the three stooges takes it to a whole nother level. Politics galore. Huge mess."

                I see no reason why such figures as rice, cheney and rumsfield should be excluding from investigation or prosecution. In fact, I say the DOJ is obligated to pursue them above all others, if that is where the investigation leads. If for nothing else, to reaffirm that the principles of democracy are still intact

                as for the olc, I think it might be hard to argue that their memos just represented standard legal opinion, due to the place of legal authority they take in the executive branch and the fact that their rulings are considered binding. This clearly denotes some type of authority over other individuals.

                Of course I am not a lawyer and my understanding of law is poor, at best.



                • fuck you obama.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    are we ready for socialism yet?
                    • dream dream dree eee ee ee ammm.

                      no. we're ready for a police state.
                      • I'm glad that people are already jumping to blame the new administration and getting in before the holiday rush.

                        I mean, let's get 'em! What can we do to really damage them now and even though we will never get what we want out of them, let's see how much we can really damage them from the far-Left! That can only help things! At best, we can make any of Obama's choices for SCOTUS be really, really ugly and difficult fights!

                        In fact, from now on, let's just tear anyone down that we don't agree with 100%. That would be the most intelligent thing that we could do. THEN, we can just never have to expect ANYTHING good to happen and not EVER be let down! Hell, even better than THAT! If we just attack BEFORE the election, we can guarantee that there's a Republican in office, and then we can just attack away without having these silly discussions about how ANY Dem is better than ANY Rep.

                        Let's take this ship DOWN! AND! Let's do it on OUR TERMS!

                        Yeah!
                    • < are we ready for socialism yet?>

                      No, I like to keep most of what I work hard to earn.

                      We're a country of 300 million people. Socialism would not work here. It'll never work here.

                      When our economy is doing well, we're the economic engine for the whole world, so instead of asking for the impossible and rushing to try the impossible fantasy of socialism, why not work to better the programs that we have now?

                      Or, you can just complain that we don't have socialism? OR! EVEN BETTER! Just try to ruin Obama's administration! THAT would do it! Yeah! Destroy Obama's ability to do ANY good, so then the next administration would be Republican, and then - after they pulled a Bush on us and made things even WORSE, seven years from now you can put forward a far-Lefty as candidate, who will lose and then put the Republicans into office again, and then, after those four years, imagine how bad things will be, and they'll be playing into your hands! Ha ha ha! Little do they know that your plan is to have a republican fuck shit up soooooooooooooo bad that we'll then HAVE to change!

                      GENIUS! That's the plan!
                      • <When our economy is doing well, we're the economic engine for the whole world, so instead of asking for the impossible and rushing to try the impossible fantasy of socialism, why not work to better the programs that we have now?>

                        and what programs might those be?
                        • S-chip?
                          • that's one ... ...
                            • so single payer is not on the table nor is it even getting the courtesy of an honest comprehensive cost benefit analysis because - it is more than safe to assume - that analysis would vault single payer to the top of the cost-benefit analysis hit parade. so obama STARTS his 'negotiation' two thirds of the way to the utterly and psychotically rapacious republican position. meanwhile the people that brought him to the party, the non-sheepbot progressive base, is melting away. a few cosmetic changes to keep the eliticons happy and dem coffers filled while the nation continues to bleed to death from a thousand cuts.

                              f..u.c.k. - y.o.u. - o.b.a.m.a.


                              • darn, seth, sure wish you could join in here.

                                Sun, July 26, 2009 - 5:49 PM
                                obushma is starting to pay the political price for his bullshit ways, his poll numbers are plummeting.

                                unlike bush who rammed though his program even after his poll numbers went south, obama with his kumbayah bullshit is struggling even with high poll numbers, he won't have a prayer when he drops below 40 and the republican don't even have to worry about there being a political price to pay for attacking him.

                                wonder if obama realizes it's his FAILURE to be a liberal that's fucking him up, or if he's already so much in the bubble he doesn't even realize it.
                                • D'zoner, Obama still has not dropped below 40% as you predicted. As a matter of fact, your whole theory that he must be purposefully throwing the election due to your perception of his unpopularity does not stand the test of reality either. Please consider the following.

                                  Obama Faring Better Among Dem Voters Than Every Democratic President Since Truman: Gallup

                                  WASHINGTON -- The debt ceiling debate has provided yet another opportunity for Democratic base voters to lament the political choices of the president they helped elect. A Washington Post-ABC poll released this week found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly supported President Obama's record on jobs had fallen an astonishing 22 percentage points over the course of a year, from 53 percent to 31 percent. The prioritization of spending cuts over job creation -- not rhetorically, but in terms of governance -- was likely the primary contributor.

                                  But as in similar moments in the past, such as the loss of the public option in the health care debate, the failure to end Bush-era tax cuts on high-earning Americans, and last spring's government shutdown showdown, voters' disappointments in policy choices are not translating to serious problems for Obama's reelection campaign.

                                  President Obama currently enjoys a higher popularity among Democratic voters than every Democratic president dating back to Harry Truman had at similar junctures in their presidencies.

                                  According to Gallup's presidential job approval data, Obama had a 78 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 18 to July 24, 2011. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, had a 77 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 20 to July 23, 1995. Before him, Jimmy Carter had a 37 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 13 to July 16, 1979. Before him, Lyndon Johnson had a 63 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 13 to July 18, 1967. Before him, John F. Kennedy had a 77 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 18 to July 23, 1963. And before him, Harry Truman had a 76 percent approval rating percent among Democrats from July 4 to July 9, 1947.

                                  The numbers don't tell the full story. Only two of those presidents, Truman and Clinton, would go on to win reelection. In Carter's case, moreover, that 37 percent approval rating among Democrats represented a near-nadir -- it would be back up to 67 percent by the turn of 1980.

                                  But for the Obama re-election campaign, the side-by-side comparison is an advantageous one. For starters, there is time for the president to improve on his 78 percent. More importantly, his popularity among Democrats has remained consistent even after he threw the party's sacred cows -- Social Security and Medicare -- into the deficit hysteria mix.

                                  www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...95.html
            • Re: Obama changes his mind, again

              Sat, April 25, 2009 - 5:40 AM
              >Congress is the worst place to handle this, if you want anything that appears reasonable.

              Putting things past Congress does tend to leave one in a better position to argue that there was wide-spread popular support for the process that led to the outcome.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Thu, July 30, 2009 - 11:34 AM
    And that boys and girls is why his leftist pals abandoned him.


    I lost what I believed was a good friend because she was incapable of allowing me a political position on the Gazan war against Israel Suddenly I was "monster" according to her. That after a very long and warm friendship.


    This is so typical of the psycho left.
  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Thu, August 13, 2009 - 5:12 PM
    <"he is going to a really bad place really fast with the whole rule of law and letting justice take it course thing.

    a REALLY bad place."

    ...

    "obushma is starting to pay the political price for his bullshit ways, his poll numbers are plummeting.

    unlike bush who rammed though his program even after his poll numbers went south, obama with his kumbayah bullshit is struggling even with high poll numbers, he won't have a prayer when he drops below 40 and the republican don't even have to worry about there being a political price to pay for attacking him.

    wonder if obama realizes it's his FAILURE to be a liberal that's fucking him up, or if he's already so much in the bubble he doesn't even realize it.">

    I think D'zoner was on to something, Obama has the progressives bent over the barrel and is fucking them like there's no meaningful health care reform tomorrow.

    Of course from my perspective Obama is going to a good place, a REALLY good place.

    ROTFLMAO.

    Praise the Lord.
  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Tue, December 21, 2010 - 11:32 AM
    considering what's in store for this country that obama did squat to inform the american people about or take remotely effective measures to prepare for, except for a full on police state, it looks like obama has a tiger by the tail.
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Tue, December 21, 2010 - 11:50 AM
      Whats in store for this country? Where has Obama prepared for a full on police state?
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Tue, December 21, 2010 - 2:28 PM
        Wasn't one of his big campaign talk points to put a stop to earmarks? Can't really say I'm surprised that he caved in though, it's the reality of politics and it is naive to think otherwise.


        Add-ons turn tax cut bill into 'Christmas tree'

        By Mary Clare Jalonick

        Associated Press
        Published: Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 11:17 a.m. MST

        WASHINGTON — In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers. But that hardly stopped the squabbling on Friday, with Bill Clinton even back at the White House pleading the president's case.

        While Republicans sat back quietly, mostly pleased, Democrats and other liberals were going at each other ever so publicly. As Clinton lectured on Obama's behalf, Vermont independent Bernie Sanders castigated the agreement for the TV cameras in the mostly empty Senate chamber.

        The tax deal, reached behind the scenes and still informal, now includes ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs and wind and solar grants for the environmentalists — all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats.

        The holiday additions are being hung on the big bill that was Congress' main reason for spending December in Washington, long after the elections that will give Republicans new power in January. The measure will extend Bush-era tax cuts, averting big tax increases for nearly all Americans, and keep jobless benefits flowing.

        Republicans generally liked that agreement, worked out by Obama and GOP leaders. Democrats generally didn't, hence the add-ons.

        It's all expected to come to a decisive vote next week, total cost by the latest congressional estimate: $857.8 billion.

        On Friday, there were contrasting events for public consumption.

        On Capitol Hill, Sanders spoke vigorously for 8 1/2 hours in a virtually empty chamber, urging defeat of a measure he said would give "tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who don't need it." He finally ended his speech, conceding "It has been a long day."

        At the White House, Obama turned over the briefing room microphone to former President Clinton who declared, "I don't believe there is a better deal out there." All sides, he said, "are going to have to eat some things they don't like."

        The add-ons were being attached behind the scenes.

        Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.

        For urban lawmakers, there's a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year. Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.

        The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.

        The ethanol money was added despite a growing congressional opposition to subsidizing the fuel after decades of government support. Last month, 17 Republican and Democratic senators wrote to leaders calling the tax breaks "fiscally indefensible," since there's already a law in place that requires ethanol be blended into gasoline.

        "Historically the government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: Subsidize it, protect it from competition or require its use. We understand that ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support from the U.S. government at this time," the senators wrote.

        But ethanol still has powerful supporters on Capitol Hill, including Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and a key negotiator on the Senate tax bill. Adding the ethanol tax breaks was designed to help shore up the votes of many rural Democratic as well as Republican senators.

        But while the add-ons may have won more votes for the Obama-GOP deal the Senate, their potential impact is less clear in the House, where Democrats have criticized the package as a tax giveaway to the rich.

        Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, a conservative Democrat who steps downs as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in January, says he would have voted against the bill if it had contained some of the clean energy tax incentives and nothing for ethanol.

        "I know this will help some members in the House, different parts of this will help different members," he said.

        Still, Peterson said the credits for the corn-based fuel probably won't last forever. He said Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House's No. 3 Democrat, told the caucus it was important to include ethanol in the bill, and some members booed him. That wouldn't have happened a few years ago, Peterson said.

        Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who lost re-election in November, sponsored the House version of legislation extending the ethanol tax breaks. But he says he still can't support the bill because of his opposition to provisions cutting estate taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

        "There may be some that vote for the package that otherwise hate it because of the ethanol provision, but my sense is that ethanol alone isn't going to be something that puts us over the top," he said.

        A spokesman for Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., a leader in the effort to win tax credits for wind and solar energy, said his boss still hasn't been won over yet on the package. He said the extension was necessary but not sufficient for Blumenauer's support. "His vote will depend on what the final version looks like," said spokesman Derek Schlickeisen.

        Rep. Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat, also was not won over by the renewable energy extension, despite being a big supporter of the program.

        "It's one of the best things we have in the federal government for job creation. It is incredibly important. And it's nuts not to finance it by simply letting the upper-income tax brackets expire," he said. "I think there's a better deal out there potentially available and we ought to fight for it."

        And there's the possibility the added goodies will have opposite the intended effect for some lawmakers. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said the add-ons could turn his fiscally conservative colleagues against the bill.

        "You don't want to be accused out there of supporting stimulus three," he said. "It will knock some votes off in the House, but more than anything it will show the voters out there that things haven't changed with Republicans."
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Tue, December 21, 2010 - 2:42 PM
          <<Wasn't one of his big campaign talk points to put a stop to earmarks?

          Everyone seems to be against earmarks, unless they are their own earmarks. Certainly Obama has had to compromise, but Republicans are being the most hypocritical of all, crying aboust wasteful spending and earmarks while embedding earmarks in to legislation themselves. They are against earmarks for everyone but their own constituents. Personally I don't think all earmarks are bad, it is in part how the federal govt. invests in individual states..
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Tue, December 21, 2010 - 3:14 PM
            Revise that to say that I don't think ALL earmarks are bad.
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Tue, December 21, 2010 - 3:28 PM
              Ya, earmarks are not always a bad thing, more often it is to upgrade a school then to build a bridge to nowhere.
              I just don't like the idea of using that as a rallying cry and then doing the opposite, but that's also something to be expected.

              I'm not saying that as a criticism of O'mama, just commenting on how he flipped on the subject like all politicians do.
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Tue, December 21, 2010 - 4:29 PM
                <<I just don't like the idea of using that as a rallying cry and then doing the opposite, but that's also something to be expected.

                In the case of Obama we are seeing him accepting earmarks as part of a compromise to get necessary legislation passed. It does not always smell good, but compromise is built in to our democratic system of government. But when some are screaming about earmarks in public while inserting their own personal earmarks in to legislation, that is quite another animal altogether.
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Tue, May 31, 2011 - 7:33 PM
        Jeff - "Whats in store for this country? Where has Obama prepared for a full on police state?"

        this still your reality?
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Wed, June 1, 2011 - 10:19 AM
          It is duly noted that not only have d'zoners Iran predictions not come true, Obama's numbers are not even approaching going below 40%. It is also duly noted that he is also avoiding answering my questions, so I repeat:

          1.) Whats in store for this country?

          2.) Where has Obama prepared for a full on police state?

          Please be specific.
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Wed, June 1, 2011 - 12:22 PM
          And where did your predictions about Bush invading Iran go? You just transferred that conspiracy prediction to Obama when it did not pan out under Bush. I find it hillarious that you would come back here and highlight your own failed predictions, LOL!
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Wed, June 1, 2011 - 3:41 PM
            Didn't Bush invade Iran right after he declared marshal law, which was just around the corner for his eight years in office?
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Thu, June 2, 2011 - 9:33 AM
              No, they made a mistake......they are now revising their predictions so as to place them on Obama's shoulders. Kind of like the Do-Over the Rapture is getting, D'zoner is also calling for a do over! LOL~ :)~
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Sat, June 4, 2011 - 9:22 PM
                the Rapture...hahahahahahahahahahah!
                Pure "Christian Drivel" but very FUN to make sci-fi movies of!
                HOW many years for the Rapture now? 10? 50? 200? 500?
                Sure it's gonna happen,only in the mindset of all the Christian Sheeple!
  • Obama is the Black Bush

    Wed, June 8, 2011 - 2:50 AM
    Kinda like the black sheep.

    Fuck Him
    • Re: Obama is the Black Bush

      Wed, June 8, 2011 - 7:14 AM
      But WAIT! Obama isn't BLACK...he was "The GREAT WHITE Hope" LOL!

      The CHANGE WE NEED....

      Sure Mr President!
      and to think I voted for this miserable failure!
      • Re: Obama is the Black Bush

        Thu, June 9, 2011 - 2:28 AM
        At least unions love him though. He'll bend over for them.

        --

        Obama Blocked Clean Up of BP Oil Spill by Friendly Countries; International Assistance Blocked by Regulations Obama Had The Authority To Waive

        by Hans Bader on June 14, 2010


        Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill “have come from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration wouldn’t accept the help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions.

        “The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So . . . the U.S. Coast Guard . . . can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

        The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama has refused to do so, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen. Instead, Obama rejected a Dutch offer to help clean up the spill, noted Voice of America News:

        “The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.”

        “After the Obama administration refused help from the Netherlands, Geert Visser, the consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, told Loren Steffy: ‘Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done.’” But for Obama, politics always comes first: “The explanation of Obama’s reluctance to seek this remedy is his cozy relationship with labor unions. . . ‘The unions see it [not waiving the act] as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived.’”

        Ironically, even the staunchest supporters of the Jones Act are now distancing themselves from refusals to accept foreign help, saying they have “not and will not stand in the way of the use of these well-established waiver procedures to address this crisis.” Obama is being more intransigently pro-union than the unions themselves.

        One can only hope Obama will change his mind now, given that “each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the clean up is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.”

        (The Obama administration has belatedly accepted some foreign equipment for use in fighting the spill, although it still blocks ships with foreign crews. As Voice of America notes, although “the Netherlands offered help in April,” such as providing “sophisticated” oil “skimmers and dredging devices,” the Obama administration blocked their crews from working in U.S. waters, and as a result, this crucial “operation was delayed until U.S. crews could be trained” in June. “The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.”)

        In April 2009, the Obama administration granted BP, a big supporter of Obama, a waiver of environmental regulations. But after the oil spill, it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures. It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method” of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills. Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

        Obama is now using BP’s oil spill to push the global-warming legislation that BP had lobbied for. Obama’s global warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply. Ethanol makes gasoline costlier and dirtier, increases ozone pollution, and increases the death toll from smog and air pollution. Ethanol production also results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”
        • Re: Obama is the Black Bush

          Thu, June 9, 2011 - 9:39 AM
          <<Obama Blocked Clean Up of BP Oil Spill by Friendly Countries; International Assistance Blocked by Regulations Obama Had The Authority To Waive

          That is a myth: www.factcheck.org/2010/06/o...jones-act/
          • Re: Obama is the Black Bush

            Thu, June 9, 2011 - 5:12 PM
            My mistake, looks like this was started by people in the Tea Party. Although I still have to say I am dissapointed with the oil spill cleanup. Lots of the oil is still on the ocean floor and BP is announcing record profits. Also, regarding the title of the article, I wish they would stop calling the Tea Party "The Right". They are the crazy extreme right and should really be a separate party.

            --

            The Right's Faux Jones Act Outrage

            Fri Jun. 18, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

            Usually Dick Armey gets worked up over things like taxes and the deficit. But at a June 16 symposium about the Tea Party movement, the former House majority leader and current chair of FreedomWorks was jumping out of his chair over something even more arcane: the Jones Act—a 1920s-era maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from shuttling goods between American ports.

            To hear Armey talk, the act—and President Obama's support for it—are all that's keeping eager Norwegian skimmers from mopping up the oil destined for Florida's pristine sands. "How do you explain a president who does not waive the Jones Act on day one?" he fumed. "No press is even asking the questions." His explanation: It's a "silly little labor sop."

            During the past week, the Jones Act has become a big GOP talking point, with the likes of Oliver North, Dick Morris, and congressional GOP freshmen stepping up to bash Obama for his alleged shortsightedness. Obama, his critics insist, needs to follow the lead of—yes—his predecessor. "In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Bush administration didn't hesitate to waive the law completely in an emergency," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week.

            Just one problem with these arguments: They are almost entirely false.

            Advertise on MotherJones.com

            Let's start with this Bush business: It is true that Bush issued a Jones Act waiver post-Katrina. But he did so not to help relief efforts, but rather as a gift to the oil industry. The waiver allowed firms to use unregulated foreign vessels to ship oil and gas from local refineries that were damaged in the hurricane.

            In fact, Bush waived the Jones Act at the same time he suspended anti-pollution laws for gasoline—hardly a humanitarian gesture. Whether the Jones waiver helped relief efforts at all is unclear—and was disputed even back then.

            "You cannot find a person in Bush's administration who can explain why that was a good idea, or how it helped," says Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of labor unions, shipbuilders and operators, and "pro-defense" organizations. Ruge says that the waiver may have enabled some foreign cruise ships to house displaced residents, but that didn't require the sort of blanket waiver the GOP is now demanding from Obama. (His organization supports case-by-case waivers, as needed, to assist with the oil spill.)

            Bush's move also prompted Jones Act waiver requests from a host of unrelated companies who also wanted to utilize cheaper foreign shippers. In the same vein, freshman Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou—the GOP's pit bull for this latest Obama attack—had actually campaigned on promises that he would introduce legislation to exempt his state from the Jones Act. The act was an issue for Djou and his fellow Hawaii Republicans long before the spill, since the state depends on ships for supplies, and critics of the act say it makes things more expensive for Hawaiians.

            So, has the Jones Act really prevented the US from enlisting foreign help in the Gulf cleanup? Doesn't seem so. On June 15, Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard's point man on the disaster, issued a press release noting that there are already 15 foreign-flagged ships working the spill—the act only applies to ships operating within three miles of shore, and there's plenty of work to be done outside that boundary.

            "While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," Allen said. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay." He added that no foreign entities have even requested a waiver—which can be granted if no suitable American vessels are available.

            His statement has done little to quiet conservatives' claims—particularly the notion that Obama won't waive the act because he's in bed with labor. On June 10, Heritage Foundation fellow Joseph Carafano set the tone for this accusation on Fox News, noting that foreign ships are being sidelined because "this is a big thing for unions. The unions see it as…protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that."

            There's a nugget of truth to the labor critique. Maritime unions did back Obama in 2008, and they are generally supportive of the Jones Act. But they take issue with suggestions that labor is putting politics over the Gulf cleanup. "To say the unions are standing in the way is completely unfounded," says a spokesperson for the Seafarers International Union.

            This wouldn't be the first time the Jones Act has come under fire as a union-protection measure. Shipping companies that rely on foreign vessels have long hoped to amend the act so that they can compete domestically without paying US taxes or complying with domestic labor, environmental, or safety regulations. (Many of these, such as the Virginia-based Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, are American companies.) Firms that would prefer to save money by using foreign-registered ships have also griped about the Jones Act. In the mid-1990s, a group of such interests calling itself the "Jones Act Reform Coalition" tried—without success—to weaken the law.

            There's one big reason the Jones Act, this union-friendly protectionist measure, has managed to survive a frontal assault by big corporations: national security. The act's requirements that domestic vessels be owned, registered, and built in America—and largely operated by US crews—ensures that there are sufficient working shipyards and skilled labor to supply the military's needs. The Navy, for its part, relies heavily on commercial vessels to supply the fleet in war zones; in the Iraq fighting, merchant mariners moved 90 percent of the American combat cargo. That's hardly a job the Pentagon wants to turn over to a bunch of leaky Liberian-flagged boats staffed with Somali teenagers earning slave wages.

            In fact, given the GOP's concerns about terrorism and the party's historic love of all things military, it's hard to imagine folks like Armey and members of Congress really wanting to open domestic shipping to foreign ships. Yet, in effect, that's what they're arguing for. Of course, had Obama waived the Jones Act on day one, as Armey suggests he should have, the same crowd likely would have accused him of sacrificing national security for the environment and a chance to export jobs to his European socialist friends.

            Nope, Obama really can't win on this one.
            • Re: Obama is the Black Bush

              Fri, June 10, 2011 - 3:46 PM
              I think we were fucked regardless with the oil spill, not something you can really clean up. I am also disappointed with the use of dispersants. And you are correct, the Tea Party does not represent a lot of reasonable conservatives like yourself. One thing you are not is reactionary and ignorant, and that seems to pretty much sum up the Tea Party and their leaders.
              • Re: Obama is the Black Bush

                Sun, June 12, 2011 - 9:16 PM
                according to BP executives they "totally cleaned it up"
                "wev'e been there from the start and we will be there till all the oil is gone"
                Sure you WILL!
                The BP oil spill was the worst ecological disaster in more than 200 years!
                the damage it did will be felt and seen in the gulf coast waters for another 100 years
                This disaster proved that offshore Oil drilling is NOT environmentally safe
                Alternatives TO OIL is what is needed but they don't generate BILLIONS in profits like Oil does!
  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Sun, July 3, 2011 - 10:14 AM
    not much ambiguity left here.

    obama is very clearly flat out aiding and abetting implementing every aspect of the republican~greedpigs agenda from gutting social security and medicare to blocking any attempt to rein in the corporate/wall street greedpigs.

    his 'inner circle' now solely consists of wall street, big energy and multinational corporate 'advisors'.

    looking to me his closing act will be to so de-energize the left that the republicans sweep both houses and the presidency in 2012. i think he wants no part of being president from 2012 - 2016 when the shit REALLY starts hitting the fan and the overt police state is implemented in earnest in response to spreading riots and anarchy. There's a whole lot of very white rednecks with guns, military experience and knowledge of explosives that wouldn't take kindly to some egghead ni**er in the whitehouse trying to impose martial law on them. That's a job best left to 'one of their own'. Expect a tea partier type as your next president.

    kinda explains why obama just keeps 'caving' to the right with just enough token resistance and crumb tossing to keep a primary challenge at bay. he's doing his damnedest to move the country as far to the right as possible before the next election.






    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Tue, July 5, 2011 - 12:29 PM
      You have a piss poor track record regarding predictions d'zoner.
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Wed, July 6, 2011 - 5:25 PM
        so do you Jeff
        you are so IN LOVE with Barack Obama that you will dig up anything to promote "your Hero"
        talk about a "shill for our current president"?


        go away "OBAMA LOVER" and take your failing president with you
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Thu, July 7, 2011 - 10:34 AM
          <<so do you Jeff

          Oh yeah? I don't make Kreskin-like predictions so your assertion is illogical. Name ONE prediction I have made that has not come true or admit you were talking out of your ass.

          <<you are so IN LOVE with Barack Obama that you will dig up anything to promote "your Hero"

          Why is "your hero" in quotes? What have I "dug up" to promote him? Why are you unable to talk in specifics? That said, there are many actions he has taken that I disgree with, I just have a beeter grasp of the specifics than you do. Any monkey can engage in spittle filled rants, whereas it takes a bit of intellect to take the time to educate yourself as to the specifics that you continue to ignore.
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Mon, July 25, 2011 - 12:31 PM
        jeff - "You have a piss poor track record regarding predictions d'zoner"

        yeah? notice the date on this thread? two months after obama took office - because i don't have my head stuck up my ass. i was CHEERLEADING for obama pre-election because he was the only candidate i saw with the POTENTIAL to save this country from rack and ruin, a point i REPEATEDLY made ... he had the POTENTIAL but it was only what he DID in the whitehouse from the day he took office that counted.

        that's why i was totally correct in calling obama out within DAYS of his taking office ... because i KNEW what he did in his first days in office, when he had the nation at his back were the most crucial days and would foretell where he intended to take his presidency.

        yeah, i was all HOPEFUL ... WANTING obama to hit the track FIGHTING for progressive policies and ideas, RE-ESTABLISHING the rule of law and constitution.

        but i was also utterly PRAGMATIC. once he took office i watched what he DID, not what he SAID and what he DID was atrocious.

        guess you were absorded in picking your nose or something when your grandma was telling you "it's what they DO not what they SAY that's important'.
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Mon, July 25, 2011 - 12:48 PM
          <but i was also utterly PRAGMATIC. once he took office i watched what he DID, not what he SAID and what he DID was atrocious>

          meanwhile, jeff, YOU were constantly coming back with examples of what obama was SAYING as rebuttals to my posts and parroting back whitehouse talking points designed to muddy the waters of what obama was actually DOING. hell, you're STILL falling for that bullshit.

          by the way, a lot of what you call my 'predictions' was actually my reasoningand extrapolating out POTENTIAL future actions and events based on data to hand. some panned out, some didn't.

          I only made a couple of HARD predictions that i so labeled AS hard predictions ... one of those being, by the way, very early on predicting obama would win the election when most thought the idea was ludicrous. another WAS your oft sited prediction buch would start a war with iran before he left office. that does not make a 'piss poor' track record of predictions. jeff.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Tue, July 26, 2011 - 3:43 PM
            <<meanwhile, jeff, YOU were constantly coming back with examples of what obama was SAYING as rebuttals to my posts and parroting back whitehouse talking points designed to muddy the waters of what obama was actually DOING. hell, you're STILL falling for that bullshit.

            Show an example. Because you previous claim that I am making predictions that have not come true has certainly not panned out. You made the claim and then completely failed to demonstrate said claim.

            P.S. Spittle filled rants do not = fact based analysis.
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Tue, July 26, 2011 - 11:14 AM
          "i was CHEERLEADING for obama pre-election because he was the only candidate i saw with the POTENTIAL"

          I think that is a good way to describe Obama, a guy who had potential - in one of two elections down the road. I think he would have been a much better president if they didn't run him before he had enough political experience and know-how.
          At least he'll make a million a year on the speaking circuit after 2012.
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Tue, July 26, 2011 - 3:33 PM
          Your past predictions have fallen flat, and my guess is that your prediction that Obama is purposefully throwing the election will fall flat as well. And for the record, you were never an Obama cheerleader. You were always bitter that Hillary lost.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Fri, July 29, 2011 - 7:28 PM
            "Your past predictions have fallen flat, and my guess is that your prediction that Obama is purposefully throwing the election will fall flat as well. And for the record, you were never an Obama cheerleader. You were always bitter that Hillary lost."

            well that's pretty much game set and match.

            i was ALWAYS against hillary clinton, an OBVIOUS corporate and establishment stooge and a cheerleader for obama. find ONE post where i came out in unqualified support of her as president.

            this is proof positive your recall of events is shit.

            here's just a few of my threads from back then proving it.

            uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...67e65914
            uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...5958b770
            uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...066d4d6e
            uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...2c73d524




            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Wed, August 10, 2011 - 11:38 AM
              OK, then I was confusing you with Cornel. But the fact still remains that you have been indicating that the US is about to invade Iran for YEARS. In addition, you ignored the following:

              D'zoner, Obama still has not dropped below 40% as you predicted. As a matter of fact, your whole theory that he must be purposefully throwing the election due to your perception of his unpopularity does not stand the test of reality either. Please consider the following.

              Obama Faring Better Among Dem Voters Than Every Democratic President Since Truman: Gallup

              WASHINGTON -- The debt ceiling debate has provided yet another opportunity for Democratic base voters to lament the political choices of the president they helped elect. A Washington Post-ABC poll released this week found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly supported President Obama's record on jobs had fallen an astonishing 22 percentage points over the course of a year, from 53 percent to 31 percent. The prioritization of spending cuts over job creation -- not rhetorically, but in terms of governance -- was likely the primary contributor.

              But as in similar moments in the past, such as the loss of the public option in the health care debate, the failure to end Bush-era tax cuts on high-earning Americans, and last spring's government shutdown showdown, voters' disappointments in policy choices are not translating to serious problems for Obama's reelection campaign.

              President Obama currently enjoys a higher popularity among Democratic voters than every Democratic president dating back to Harry Truman had at similar junctures in their presidencies.

              According to Gallup's presidential job approval data, Obama had a 78 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 18 to July 24, 2011. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, had a 77 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 20 to July 23, 1995. Before him, Jimmy Carter had a 37 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 13 to July 16, 1979. Before him, Lyndon Johnson had a 63 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 13 to July 18, 1967. Before him, John F. Kennedy had a 77 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 18 to July 23, 1963. And before him, Harry Truman had a 76 percent approval rating percent among Democrats from July 4 to July 9, 1947.

              The numbers don't tell the full story. Only two of those presidents, Truman and Clinton, would go on to win reelection. In Carter's case, moreover, that 37 percent approval rating among Democrats represented a near-nadir -- it would be back up to 67 percent by the turn of 1980.

              But for the Obama re-election campaign, the side-by-side comparison is an advantageous one. For starters, there is time for the president to improve on his 78 percent. More importantly, his popularity among Democrats has remained consistent even after he threw the party's sacred cows -- Social Security and Medicare -- into the deficit hysteria mix.
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Wed, August 10, 2011 - 1:03 PM
          <<because i KNEW what he did in his first days in office,

          What did he do in his first days of office that led you to oppose him? Please be specific.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Sun, August 14, 2011 - 8:32 PM
            "What did he do in his first days of office that led you to oppose him? Please be specific."

            fuck off.

            i wrote dozens of lengthy, in depth threads and posts why i opposed him his first 2 years in office. threads and posts YOU responded to at the time, including a bunch over at political junkies when i was kicked off this tribe. fuck, THIS thread was one of them.

            as i've commented numerous times, debating you is like debating a fucking rock.


            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Mon, August 15, 2011 - 11:26 AM
              <<"What did he do in his first days of office that led you to oppose him? Please be specific."

              fuck off. <<

              In other words, you are making yet more claims you are unable to back up with specifics and are now responding with childish vulgarity.

              <<i wrote dozens of lengthy, in depth threads and posts why i opposed him his first 2 years in office. threads and posts YOU responded to at the time

              And this happened just days in to his presidency? What SPECIFIC action did he take days in to his presidency that led you to oppose him? Why are you unable to answer this simple and straightforward question regarding your own words?
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Fri, August 19, 2011 - 10:50 AM
                ............................ <<"What did he do in his first days of office that led you to oppose him? Please be specific."

                fuck off. <<

                In other words, you are making yet more claims you are unable to back up with specifics and are now responding with childish vulgarity.

                <<i wrote dozens of lengthy, in depth threads and posts why i opposed him his first 2 years in office. threads and posts YOU responded to at the time

                And this happened just days in to his presidency? What SPECIFIC action did he take days in to his presidency that led you to oppose him? Why are you unable to answer this simple and straightforward question regarding your own words? .........................

                okay, a fucking rock that's even dumber than a bag of hammers (based on the fact this thread post, written by me, is based on just such a specific action of obama's).
                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                  Mon, August 22, 2011 - 2:25 PM
                  Sorry, but you were completely lacking in details and specifics. Generalities don't cut it, be specific as to what you are speaking of. I repeat: What SPECIFIC action did he take days in to his presidency that led you to oppose him?
  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Mon, July 25, 2011 - 11:53 AM
    it baffles me how anyone that considers themselves a liberal or progressive can still support this utter corporate, to the right of dick cheney, tool, when he has continued or expanded EVERY policy they were ranting and raving against during the bush years.

    ongoing process of separating the chaff from the wheat i guess, but man, i sure though there was more wheat and less chaff on the left.

    SOMEBODY is going to start up a progressive party to tap into that 10% of the population that is intelligent, rational, informed and NOT self deluded.

    obama's effective dismantlement of anything remotely progressive in the democratic party and radical right polices has also dismantled the legitimacy of any democratic squawk about progressives 'dividing the party' so republicans win to hold up.

    the meme i've been pushing for a year and a half now that the country would have been better off with a mccain-palin presidency because THEY couldn't have shut down the liberal-progressive opposition AND ABILITY OF THE LEFT TO COMMUNICATE THEIR PHILOSOPHY AND REASONING IN THE MSM has really been catching on lately. people are realizing what a dangerous and disastrous stalking horse/manchurian presidency this really is.
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Tue, July 26, 2011 - 3:49 PM
      <<when he has continued or expanded EVERY policy they were ranting and raving against during the bush years.

      See, these are the exact kind of claims that don't pass the smell test For instance, Bush was blocking any repealing of Don't as Don't tell, and Obama has ended that policy, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military. Notice that you once again are not talking in specifics, just ranting.
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Wed, July 27, 2011 - 10:22 AM
      Or how about Obama opening up federal funding for stem cell research? How does that = extending Bush's policies? Or how about the Credit Card Bill of Rights? Or requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions? Or how about the decision regarding no permanent bases in Iraq like Bush wanted? Or the granting of Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba? Or the expansion of Pell grants for low-income students? Or how about The Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors? How about the banning of lobbyist gifts to executive employees? Or requiring 10 percent renewable energy by 2012? And the creation of a job training programs for clean technologies?

      NONE of these were Bush programs, so your assertions that Obama is extending ALL of Bush's programs falls flat in the face of these specifics.





  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Mon, August 8, 2011 - 5:46 AM
    OBAMA IS AN ASSHOLE
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Wed, August 10, 2011 - 6:57 PM
      Nothing will stop Obama's beach vacation plans

      WASHINGTON — Fourteen million people are out of work. Millions more are losing fortunes in the stock market. America's AAA bond rating has slipped.

      By Carolyn Kaster, AP


      So should President Obama be vacationing next week in Martha's Vineyard, off the coast of Massachusetts, where the average home costs $650,000?

      Yes, says White House press secretary Jay Carney. Obama, like most Americans, needs down time to recharge his batteries for the battles ahead. And besides, he says, "The presidency travels with you."

      Maybe not, say some academics, authors and political pundits. While Obama deserves a break, they say, this might not be the time, and Martha's Vineyard might not be the place.

      "You can do a vacation, but I think you ought to do it in a way that serves your political needs," says Steven Schier, a presidential historian at Carleton College in Minnesota. "His political needs are large."

      Obama is scheduled to take his family to the secluded island next Thursday for a 10-day trip that will mark his third consecutive summer vacation there. It's the same island frequented by Bill Clinton when he was in the White House, offering a relaxing mix of ocean beaches, golf courses and restaurants.

      The trip comes after the unprecedented downgrading of U.S. credit by Standard & Poor's and a nearly 1,500-point dive in the Dow Jones industrial average this month.

      Even before those latest developments, the inability of many other Americans to afford a summer vacation had raised doubts about Obama's plans. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, last month slammed the trip as "politically tone-deaf."
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Thu, August 11, 2011 - 9:35 AM
        Did you make similar complaints about Bush? He took more vacations than any President in history, and did so while we were fighting two wars as Bush presided over one of the largest ecomonic melt downs in US history.
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Thu, August 11, 2011 - 10:10 PM
          Again..not the point. Everyone knows about Bush and his vacations. I'm not trying to be partisan, I'm calling bullshit when I see it. I suspect you would agree that Bush was not a good president, and I think I know you feel different about Obama; but isn't it ironic that Obama is proving to be no different in that area?
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Mon, August 15, 2011 - 11:30 AM
            <<Obama is proving to be no different in that area?

            Obama is not anywhere near Bush's vacation schedule. Presidents take time off to recharge their batteries, and he did so while Congress was in recess and only after the debt ceiling debate. I really don't see the problem.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Thu, August 18, 2011 - 11:07 AM
            I looked up the numbers Mark, and thusfar Obama has taken off 70 days total at this point in his presidency, while Bush had taken off 225 days. It also must be remembered that the job of President is 7 days a week, he does not get weekends off. If the President were to take the weekends off he would have been at 312 days away from work in three years of his presidency, and Obama us currently only at less than a quarter of that.
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Thu, August 18, 2011 - 6:56 PM
              You don't have to defend Obama at every turn Jeff, he's won't do you any political favors in return :P

              The point is that during a very historic economic time, he takes a vacation. I don't know if he really deserves to be criticized for that, all vacations for presidents are working vacations anyway. But I'm not thrilled either when I hear that our president, whomever it is at the time, takes a luxury vacation when there's blood in the streets and us normal people are getting our asses handed to us. I just think it's a little discouraging to hear and tells that he isn't all that different, I think those who criticized Bush for his vacations should do the same for Obama.
              -

              This is from someones blog:

              "The Washington Post has a fascinating blog on the controversy over vacation days taken by presidents, something that apparently has been going on since the time of John Adams. It has surfaced again as President Obama begins his summer vacation.

              The blog points out that one reporter went back and counted the number of vacation days taken by the last three presidents at this point in their respective presidencies.

              The numbers are:

              Clinton -- 23 days.
              Obama -- 61 days.
              Bush -- 180 days.

              I mentioned this to a guy I know and he said, "I'm guessing a lot of people think Bush should have taken off MORE days."
              Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM "
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Fri, August 19, 2011 - 10:17 AM
                <<You don't have to defend Obama at every turn Jeff, he's won't do you any political favors in return :P

                And the converse is true in that one should not jump on every piece of minutia they think they can be critical of the president over. 70 total days off in 3 years is not shit. Shit, I get 312 days off in that same amount of time in just weekends.

                <<The point is that during a very historic economic time, he takes a vacation.

                When during his presidency has their not been a very historic economic time? Are you suggesting he take zero days off?

                <<But I'm not thrilled either when I hear that our president, whomever it is at the time, takes a luxury vacation when there's blood in the streets

                What blood?

                <<I just think it's a little discouraging to hear and tells that he isn't all that different, I think those who criticized Bush for his vacations should do the same for Obama.

                Bush took an unprecidented amount of time off, more than any President in history. They are not even comparable.
  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Mon, October 10, 2011 - 8:10 PM
    fuck you obama.
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Thu, December 15, 2011 - 7:50 PM
      looks like i was spot on about obama ... and jeff was in cluelessville.

      turns out obama not only 'caved' on vetoing the 'indefinite detention of americans on american soil by the military' act (defense appropiations bill), but actually put the screws to the senate dems, who had put in a provision to specifically EXEMPT american citizens from that clause, to REMOVE that clause because it 'restricted the presidents perogatives'.

      that flat out makes obama the absolute worst AND most dangerous president in this nations history.

      since the day he was elected he has consistently worked to complete the bush/cheney/.01 elites agenda, protect those at the top from any consequences for their criminality and prepare for the imposition of an full on police state.

      his PRESSURING the senate dems to SPECIFICALLY codify into law the effective abolition of habeaus corpus for american citizens is beyond atrocious and the single worst act of treason a president can commit because hapeaus corpus is the absolute foundation of western jurisprudence, personal liberty and the rule of law.

      anyone that continues supporting this abomination of a president is beyond idiocy.
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Fri, December 16, 2011 - 8:24 AM
        "his PRESSURING the senate dems to SPECIFICALLY codify into law the effective abolition of habeaus corpus for american citizens is beyond atrocious and the single worst act of treason a president can commit because hapeaus corpus is the absolute foundation of western jurisprudence, personal liberty and the rule of law. "

        Yeah, but he's black and I have white guilt to assuage...

        PS but really, I chalk it up to most Americans just being too dumb to approach politics in any other way than sports. So people will bend over backwards in justifying this, and the execution of american citizens, despite them howling about similar acts from Bush, that never reached such levels
      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Fri, December 16, 2011 - 9:13 AM
        <<turns out obama not only 'caved' on vetoing the 'indefinite detention of americans on american soil by the military' act

        Wow, you are clueless d'zoner. Obama only decided to drop his veto AFTER US citizens were exempted. He did not in any way ask for that provision to be removed. Which is of course why you have not posted any evidence to back up your assertion, just naked empty claims.

        (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--
        (1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the
        United States.
        (2) Lawful resident aliens.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend
        to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent
        permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

        www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BI...12s1867es.htm
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Fri, December 16, 2011 - 9:42 AM
          "except to the extent
          permitted by the Constitution of the United States. "

          While I understand trying to actually discuss some complex issue with you is rather pointless

          <<<You know these are interesting times when Glenn Beck, Dianne Feinstein, Rand Paul and the ACLU all stand on the same side of an issue. The issue in question is Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), particularly Sections 1031–1033, being discussed by the House and Senate as I write and headed to the president’s desk any day now. These hastily added, under-the-radar provisions, co-sponsored by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, would allow for the indefinite military detention of any person alleged to be a member of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The provisions also apply to any person who supports or aids “belligerent” acts against the United States, whether the person is apprehended beyond our borders or on domestic soil

          For noncitizens, such detention would be mandatory. And while news agencies from Reuters to the Huffington Post have recently reported that American citizens would be “exempt” from this requirement, the truth is more complicated. Military detention would still be the default, even for citizens, but at the discretion of the president, it could be waived in favor of handing over the case to domestic law enforcement. Under this law, if the Defense Department thinks you’re a terrorist, there would be no presumption of innocence; you would be presumed a detainee of the military unless the executive decides otherwise. Without such a waiver, again, even if you’re a citizen, you will never hear words like “alleged” or “suspected.” You will be an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” with limited rights to appeal that status, no rights to due process, or to a jury, or to a speedy trial guided by the rules of evidence.>>>

          www.thenation.com/article/1...bamas-desk
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Fri, December 16, 2011 - 10:00 AM
            <<For noncitizens, such detention would be mandatory. And while news agencies from Reuters to the Huffington Post have recently reported that American citizens would be “exempt” from this requirement, the truth is more complicated.

            Except it is not, the language I posted exempting US citizens from military detention in such cases is very simple and straightforward.

            <<Military detention would still be the default, even for citizens

            Based on the language in the bill, how is this possible? It specifically states that the requirement for military detention does not apply to US citizens. Base your assertion on the actual language of the bill, step up to the plate and actually explain yourself regarding this "complex issue". The only thing that is pointless is to mindlessly regurgitate a reporters opinion, one that does not actually explain how their conclusion was reached.
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Fri, December 16, 2011 - 10:18 AM
              "Except it is not, the language I posted exempting US citizens from military detention in such cases is very simple and straightforward. "

              <<<Patricia J. Williams, a professor of law at Columbia University, was born in Boston in 1951 and holds a BA from Wellesley College and a JD from Harvard Law School.

              She was a fellow in the School of Criticism and Theory at Dartmouth College and has been an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin School Law School and its department of women's studies. Williams also worked as a consumer advocate in the office of the City Attorney in Los Angeles.

              A member of the State Bar of California and the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Williams has served on the advisory council for the Medgar Evers Center for Law and Social Justice of the City University of New York and on the board of governors for the Society of American Law Teachers, among others.

              Her publications include Anthony Burns: The Defeat and Triumph of a Fugitive Slave, On Being the Object of Property, The Electronic Transformation of Law and And We Are Not Married: A Journal of Musings on Legal Language and the Ideology of Style. In 1993, Harvard University Press published Williams's The Alchemy of Race & Rights to widespread critical acclaim. She is also author of The Rooster's Egg (Harvard, 1995), Seeing a Color-Blind Future: The Paradox of Race (Reith Lectures, 1997) (Noonday Press, 1998) and, most recently, Open House: On Family Food, Friends, Piano Lessons and The Search for a Room of My Own (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2004.)>>>

              well thank god you were here to set her strait...
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Fri, December 16, 2011 - 10:28 AM
                In other words, in the face of the actual language you can't explain how this bill allows for the Military detention of US citizens. Seems pretty simple to me, US citizens are exempted per the language of the bill. Anything unstated means that the default is existing US law and the Constitution.
                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                  Fri, December 16, 2011 - 10:37 AM
                  "Seems pretty simple to me"

                  Yes, to you, someone completely devoid of anything resembling a legal education, it seems pretty simple. But to someone actually highly educated on the subject of US law, it does not.


                  "In other words, in the face of the actual language you can't explain how this bill allows for the Military detention of US citizens."

                  Jeff, for anyone taking a few minutes to attempt to read any complex piece of legislation, it becomes rather obvious that things are not clear and strait forward...

                  But , again, asking you to acknowledge this, or your lack of legal education, isn't going to get us anywhere. You'll continue to just flat out ignore opinions from everyone from the ACLU, to individuals who were involved with the actual legislation process

                  Here is another explanation from Robert Chesney, another individual who might not approach the rigor of your education and experience on the matter, but still worth reading

                  www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/...aumfndaa/
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Fri, December 16, 2011 - 11:23 AM
                    <<Yes, to you, someone completely devoid of anything resembling a legal education, it seems pretty simple. But to someone actually highly educated on the subject of US law, it does not.

                    So her credentials are enough for you, no need fo any explanation as to how? On that basis you should just accept Obama's word as gold being that he has equally impressive credentials.

                    <<Jeff, for anyone taking a few minutes to attempt to read any complex piece of legislation, it becomes rather obvious that things are not clear and strait forward...

                    So neither you nor anyone else has an explanation as to HOW this legislation allows for the detention of US citizens? You attempted to ridicule me for a supposed inability to discuss a complex issue, and now it seems you are completely unable to back up your assertions regarding this complex issue. Fail.

                    <<But , again, asking you to acknowledge this, or your lack of legal education, isn't going to get us anywhere.

                    That does not even make sense bud. Neither you nor I have a legal education. Is that your excuse for your inability to discuss this complex issue? At the very least I am attempting to tackle it, you on the other hand have failed to demonstrate the basis for your claims.
                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                      Fri, December 16, 2011 - 11:30 AM
                      ******So our purpose in the second amendment, number 1456, is essentially to declare a truce, to provide that section 1031 of this bill does not change existing law, whichever side’s view is the correct one. So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side’s interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide.*******
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Fri, December 16, 2011 - 10:06 AM
            Let me help you out, here are the relevant sections according to your article. Taken as a whole, how is military detention of US citizens possible?

            SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
            STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE
            AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

            (a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the
            President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
            Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes
            the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain
            covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
            under the law of war.
            (b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any
            person as follows:
            (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
            the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
            harbored those responsible for those attacks.
            (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
            al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in
            hostilities against the United States or its coalition
            partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent
            act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such
            enemy forces.
            (c) Disposition Under Law of War.--The disposition of a person
            under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the
            following:
            (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the
            end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use
            of Military Force.
            (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code
            (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title
            XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
            (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
            tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
            (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's
            country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
            foreign entity.
            (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section is intended to limit or
            expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization
            for Use of Military Force.
            (e) Authorities.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
            affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United
            States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any
            other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
            (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress.--The Secretary of
            Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
            authority described in this section, including the organizations,
            entities, and individuals considered to be ``covered persons'' for
            purposes of subsection (b)(2).

            SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

            (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
            Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
            in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
            authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
            (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition
            under the law of war.
            (2) Covered persons.--The requirement in paragraph (1)
            shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
            section 1031 who is determined--
            (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
            associated force that acts in coordination with or
            pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
            (B) to have participated in the course of planning
            or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against
            the United States or its coalition partners.
            (3) Disposition under law of war.--For purposes of this
            subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
            has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no
            transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
            shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of
            section 1033.
            (4) Waiver for national security.--The Secretary of Defense
            may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
            Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of
            paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a
            certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national
            security interests of the United States.
            (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
            Aliens.--
            (1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a
            person in military custody under this section does not extend
            to citizens of the United States.
            (2) Lawful resident aliens.--The requirement to detain a
            person in military custody under this section does not extend
            to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of
            conduct taking place within the United States, except to the
            extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
            (c) Implementation Procedures.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
            the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
            submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
            (2) Elements.--The procedures for implementing this section
            shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
            (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
            to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
            process by which such determinations are to be made.
            (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for
            military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not
            require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or
            intelligence gathering with regard to persons not
            already in the custody or control of the United States.
            (C) Procedures providing that a determination under
            subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented
            until after the conclusion of an interrogation session
            which is ongoing at the time the determination is made
            and does not require the interruption of any such
            ongoing session.
            (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
            military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply
            when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government
            officials of the United States are granted access to an
            individual who remains in the custody of a third
            country.
            (E) Procedures providing that a certification of
            national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may
            be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered
            person from a third country if such a transfer is in
            the interest of the United States and could not
            otherwise be accomplished.
            (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date
            that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall
            apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are
            taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
            States on or after that effective date.

            SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF
            DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY,
            CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

            (a) Certification Required Prior to Transfer.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
            subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any
            amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to
            the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any
            individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of
            the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country,
            or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to
            Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not
            later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
            (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action
            taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at
            Guantanamo to effectuate--
            (A) an order affecting the disposition of the
            individual that is issued by a court or competent
            tribunal of the United States having lawful
            jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress
            of promptly after issuance); or
            (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military
            commission case prior to the date of the enactment of
            this Act.
            (b) Certification.--A certification described in this subsection is
            a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the
            concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the
            Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign
            country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the
            individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--
            (1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a
            designated foreign terrorist organization;
            (2) maintains control over each detention facility in which
            the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be
            housed in a detention facility;
            (3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a
            threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to
            exercise control over the individual;
            (4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure
            that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United
            States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;
            (5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the
            Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that
            the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist
            activity; and
            (6) has agreed to share with the United States any
            information that--
            (A) is related to the individual or any associates
            of the individual; and
            (B) could affect the security of the United States,
            its citizens, or its allies.
            (c) Prohibition in Cases of Prior Confirmed Recidivism.--
            (1) Prohibition.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
            subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any
            amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made
            available to the Department of Defense to transfer any
            individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of
            the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country,
            or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any
            individual who was detained at United States Naval Station,
            Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who
            was transferred to such foreign country or entity and
            subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.
            (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action
            taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at
            Guantanamo to effectuate--
            (A) an order affecting the disposition of the
            individual that is issued by a court or competent
            tribunal of the United States having lawful
            jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress
            of promptly after issuance); or
            (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military
            commission case prior to the date of the enactment of
            this Act.
            (d) National Security Waiver.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the
            applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification
            requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b)
            or the prohibition in subsection (c) if the Secretary, with the
            concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with
            the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--
            (A) alternative actions will be taken to address
            the underlying purpose of the requirement or
            requirements to be waived;
            (B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5)
            of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that
            the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have
            been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken
            under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such
            risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;
            (C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the
            Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an
            individual who was transferred to the country
            subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the
            actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will
            substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with
            regard to the individual to be transferred; and
            (D) the transfer is in the national security
            interests of the United States.
            (2) Reports.--Whenever the Secretary makes a determination
            under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the
            appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days
            before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:
            (A) A copy of the determination and the waiver
            concerned.
            (B) A statement of the basis for the determination,
            including--
            (i) an explanation why the transfer is in
            the national security interests of the United
            States; and
            (ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph
            (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation
            why it is not possible to certify that the
            risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived
            have been completely eliminated.
            (C) A summary of the alternative actions to be
            taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to
            mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or
            subsection to be waived.
            (e) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
            (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee
            on Appropriations, and the Select Committee on
            Intelligence of the Senate; and
            (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee
            on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee
            on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
            (2) The term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means
            any individual located at United States Naval Station,
            Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
            (A) is not a citizen of the United States or a
            member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
            (B) is--
            (i) in the custody or under the control of
            the Department of Defense; or
            (ii) otherwise under detention at United
            States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
            (3) The term ``foreign terrorist organization'' means any
            organization so designated by the Secretary of State under
            section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
            1189).
            (f) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 1033 of the Ike
            Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
            Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4351) is repealed.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Fri, December 16, 2011 - 10:09 AM
            And again, in case it went over your head:

            (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
            Aliens.--
            (1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a
            person in military custody under this section does not extend
            to citizens of the United States.
            (2) Lawful resident aliens.--The requirement to detain a
            person in military custody under this section does not extend
            to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of
            conduct taking place within the United States, except to the
            extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Fri, December 16, 2011 - 2:17 PM
              In case it went over *your* head:

              Explaining to a 5-Year Old Why the Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil
              www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/1...il.html
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Fri, December 16, 2011 - 2:43 PM
                <<In other words, it’s like saying “you don’t HAVE to lock up Joey for the rest of his life because he called you a mean name, but you CAN lock him away and throw away the key and then falsely accuse him of being a suspected terrorist if it would make you happy”.

                Nowhere in the bill does say US citizens "can" be detained by the military in such a manner, and if it is unsaid, that means existing law applies.
                • *groan*

                  Fri, December 16, 2011 - 3:46 PM
                  I gather that there has been some confusion as to whether S. 1867, the NDAA bill currently pending in the Senate, should be read as (i) requiring the use of military detention for US citizens in some circumstances, (ii) authorizing it but not requiring it, or (iii) precluding it. The best reading of the language currently in the bill is (ii): Section 1031 and 1032 when read in conjunction suggest that US citizens are included in the grant of detention authority contained in section 1031, while being expressly excluded from the language in section 1032 that appears on the surface to affirmatively requires resort to detention for a subset of the persons made detainable by section 1031.

                  Here is why this is confusing:

                  S. 1867 originally contained language to the effect that citizens are not subject to detention solely to the extent forbidden by the Constitution. Put simply, that was a backwards way of saying that citizens are subject to detention, except of course where the constitution forbids it. That drew lots of heat, and the language was altered. Now, in the current bill, things work as follows:

                  First, section 1031 is the explicit grant of detention authority. It no longer says anything about US citizenship, one way or the other. It is just like the AUMF in that respect. Of course, we need to recall that the Supreme Court in Hamdi had no trouble concluding that insofar as the AUMF provided detention authority for persons captured in combat in Afghanistan, that authority extended to US citizens (Hamdi left open the question whether the AUMF provided detention authority to other contexts, and if so whether citizenship would remain irrelevant in those other contexts). In any event, against this backdrop, section 1031 as currently written–and if examined in isolation–would not alter the somewhat uncertain status quo regarding the availability of detention for citizens. But 1031 does not stand in isolation. Consider section 1032.

                  Section 1032 is the supposedly-mandatory military detention provision—i.e., the idea that a subset of detainable persons (“covered persons” in the lingo of the statute) are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention (though only until one of several disposition options, including civilian custody for criminal trial, is selected). Section 1032 then goes on, in subpart (b), to state expressly that US citizens are exempt from this “mandatory detention” requirement (though lawful permanent residents are not).

                  This obviously rules out the idea of a mandatory military detention for US citizens. But note that it tends to rule in the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category.

                  So how does this compare to the status quo? Well, here we should probably distinguish between captures inside the US and captures abroad. Only the former, in my view, was still an open question (vis-a-vis the relevance of citizenship) under the AUMF.

                  www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/...citizens/
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: *groan*

                    Fri, December 16, 2011 - 3:49 PM
                    In a prior post surveying the impact of the Senate version of the NDAA bill (currently in conference negotiations), I emphasized that the Feinstein Amendment made clear that the NDAA did not alter, one way or the other, the government’s power to detain citizens. That is, the Feinstein Amendment left in place whatever authority the government has or does not have, already, under the 9/18/01 AUMF. That is still my position as to domestic captures. But on reflection I no longer think it is correct as to foreign captures of US citizens.

                    The Feinstein Amendment was specific to captures in the United States:

                    Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

                    As a consequence, my earlier analysis of the interplay between Section 1031 and 1032 of the Senate version of the NDAA–in which I concluded that the explicit exclusion of US citizens from the mandatory detention rule of 1032 implies the inclusion of US citizens in the general grant of detention authority in section 1031–should remain in force as to the overseas-capture scenario.

                    Bottom line: The Senate version of the NDAA is neutral regarding US citizens in the U.S., but certainly can be read to provide clearer statutory authority to encompass citizens abroad (so long, of course, as they fall into one of the categories specified in 1031). Note that the latter may not actually be enough to withstand a court challenge; if a court insists upon a “clear-statement” rule in order to construe the AUMF/NDAA to encompass citizens, this may not be enough to get over that hurdle as to foreign captures (and it certainly would not be enough as to domestic captures).

                    www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/...d-abroad/
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Fri, December 16, 2011 - 2:46 PM
                Show me the provision that says the the US Govt. "CAN indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen it feels like without trial, without presenting evidence, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen."
                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                  Fri, December 16, 2011 - 3:52 PM
                  Once again, Jeff so blinded by his fealty to Obama, can't comprehend the words in front of his own face.

                  >>the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

                  >>A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

                  >>A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. [this incredibly broad determination being arrived at by review of secret evidence at secret hearings]

                  >>The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include ... Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

                  It says "person." It doesn't say citizen or non-citizen, resident or illegal alien. It says "person." That covers everyone. If it *didn't* include citizens, why would citizens need exemption from the "requirement" for detention (which again, only waives the requirement, and does not restrict detention at the government's discretion).

                  Even according to one of the bill's co-sponsors, Lindsey Graham: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
                  www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

                  Thankfully, people can read a number of legal scholars across the political spectrum that will agree that section 1031 does apply to US citizens, and that 1032 only makes exception to the requirement for detainment, but does not preclude discretionary detainment, and we don't have to rely on some deceptive Obamanoid spin in lieu of intelligent legal analysis.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Fri, December 16, 2011 - 3:57 PM
                    lol, like the people who crafted the legislation, and independent legal scholars, know better than Jeff


                    Fuck, OCD must be a hell of a disease
                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                      Fri, December 16, 2011 - 4:24 PM
                      <<Fuck, OCD must be a hell of a disease

                      Yeah, cuz anyone that disagrees with Dustin is either "throwing a tantrum" or has "OCD". How about if you take some time to understand what OCD actually is so that you are not throwing it around in such an illogical manner?
                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                        Thu, December 22, 2011 - 2:57 PM
                        In reading up on the subject I have found that there is additional language that indicates existing law applies when dealing with US citizens. What some are objecting to is that they think existing US law is not definitive enough in regards to detention of US citizens. Others believe that the President already has the authority to detain US citizens in such a manner under Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution.

                        "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
                        www.usconstitution.net/xconst...c9.html

                        Would joining Al Qaeda in operational planning against the US constitute "rebellion"? Would it be a matter of "public safety"?

                        Utlimately it seems we should be clarifying existing US law and even the constitution, as opposed to demonizing this one bill that ultimately does not seem to be the primary issue regarding military detention of US citizens.
                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                          Thu, December 22, 2011 - 2:59 PM
                          www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/...erplexed/
                          Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?

                          No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched–that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.

                          The confusion associated with the NDAA’s treatment of the citizenship issue is understandable. First, the NDAA’s text relevant to this question changed quite a bit over time. Second, the relationship of the NDAA to pre-existing detention authority is difficult to follow if one does not keep up with this area regularly. So let’s begin with an overview of that pre-existing authority, before turning to the NDAA itself.

                          During the administration of George W. Bush, the government used its detention authority under the AUMF (described above) in two instances involving U.S. citizens. The first involved Yaser Hamdi, who was captured by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan in late 2001 and then later turned over to U.S. forces. He was at GTMO when the government determined he had a claim to US citizenship by virtue of having been born in Louisiana, and accordingly the government moved him to a military facility within the United States. A habeas proceeding followed, and ultimately went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2004, the Court held that (i) the government’s authority to detain under the AUMF at least included armed members of the Taliban captured in Afghanistan (at least so long as fighting continued there), (ii) citizenship was no bar to detention in that circumstance, and (iii) citizenship did, however, entitle a detainee to a fair opportunity to contest the factual claims asserted by the government in support of detention.

                          Meanwhile, the government had arrested a suspected al Qaeda member–and U.S. citizen–named Jose Padilla, taking him into custody at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. He eventually ended up in military custody, and he too brought a habeas proceeding. To make a long story very short, his case first proceeded through the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of which concluded that detention authority under the AUMF did not apply to a citizen suspected of being an al Qaeda member and captured in the U.S. After the Supreme Court required the petition to be refiled and relitigated in the Fourth Circuit (because that is where Padilla actually was held), a district court judge took the same position, but on appeal a Fourth Circuit panel held that Padilla could lawfully be detained after all–though in so holding, the panel focused on the factual assumption that Padilla had, like Hamdi, been on the battlefield in Afghanistan previously. The case was then set to go before the Supreme Court, but before it could weigh in on the merits, Padilla was shifted into civilian custody for a criminal trial (he was convicted, and is now in prison).

                          The government has not asserted authority to detain a citizen under the AUMF since this time, so the question of citizen detention has remained unsettled ever since. Which brings us at last to the NDAA.

                          An earlier version of the NDAA in the Senate contained language that strongly implied, without quite saying it, that citizens were included within the general grant of detention authority discussed above (see Bobby’s contemporaneous assessment here). This generated much debate and criticism, and eventually a group of senators offered an amendment to state explicitly that citizens could not be detained under the NDAA’s restatement of detention authority. That amendment was rejected, and at that point, Senator Feinstein offered a compromise, fall-back amendment stating simply that nothing in the NDAA should be taken to address this issue one way or the other. The explicit idea was to preserve the unsettled status quo described above, leaving it to the courts to determine if detention authority extends to citizens should the government ever again attempt to assert it (see here and here). That is the position on which the NDAA has now settled (here).

                          A final note: As Steve points out here, the courts may in the end adopt a “clear statement” requirement in relation to the citizen detention question. That is, they may hold that Congress must explicitly grant such authority before a statute like the AUMF or the NDAA can be read to grant it. If that occurs, of course, that likely will be the end of the matter, particularly in light of the explicit effort in the NDAA to remain agnostic rather than take sides on the question.
                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                          Thu, December 22, 2011 - 3:29 PM
                          "In reading up on the subject "


                          all these points were already discussed above
                          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                            Fri, December 23, 2011 - 9:36 AM
                            I don't see any mention of Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution, can you show me where that is being discussed?
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Fri, December 23, 2011 - 10:47 AM
                              lol, besides the hilarity of your "rebuttal", I find it rather funny that your stance on indefinite detention has taken such a drastic turn.
                              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                Fri, December 23, 2011 - 11:31 AM
                                Why are you avoinding my question? I don't see any mention of Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution, can you show me where that is being discussed? You said it was already discussed, now show me where.

                                That said, my stance has always been the same, generally I oppose the indefinate detention of US citizens without trial. But we are not discussing my stance on the issue, we are debating as to if this bill is the catalyst for allowing the indefinate detention of US citizens. So my point remains, is the problem this specific bill or is the problem existing law and/or the constitution? Is Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution actually appropriate? If so, then how do we define "rebellion" and "public safety" in regards to disallowing the writ of habeas corpus?
                                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                  Fri, December 23, 2011 - 12:44 PM
                                  Jeff, the fact that there was disagreement over current legal interpretations was already brought up. Naming specifics about that disagreement, then acting like no one mentioned the disagreement, is one of your more hair brained arguments in *recent* memory.

                                  Second, your clearly insinuating that there is a valid question surrounding presidential authority and indefinite detention, while before you clearly staked out the position there was no such presidential authority. You trying to speak out of both sides of your mouth does not change this

                                  third, there are questions about how this will impact citizens overseas. See here: uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...e37766f1
                                  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                    Fri, December 23, 2011 - 5:02 PM
                                    You are still avoiding my question, was Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution brought up in any of thesed threads or not?

                                    <<Second, your clearly insinuating that there is a valid question surrounding presidential authority and indefinite detention, while before you clearly staked out the position there was no such presidential authority.

                                    As far as I understood at the time the President only had authority to detain citizens in such a manner under martial law. I read article 1 section 9 of the constitution and it seems to contradict this, hence the reason I brought it up for discussion Dustin. Like many of us, I am learning as I go, so how about if you STFU if you have nothing constructive to add.

                                    <<You trying to speak out of both sides of your mouth does not change this

                                    I am doing no such thing, I became aware of more information, namely the specifics of Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution and have opened it up for discussion, and am open minded regarding my views changing as I become more informed. My views are not so rigid as to not be able to evolve through the discussion process, holding such rigidity would serve no purpose. As it is I am not sure what to think, hence the reason I have opened it up for discussion. So once again, add something constructive to this aspect of the conversation, your diversion serves no purpose other than to failed attempt to antogonize. Stop discussing me and discuss the bill.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Fri, December 16, 2011 - 4:13 PM
                    I see what you are saying, let me look in to it a bit further. It does seem there could be some wiggle room, but is it strong enough to overide constitutional law?
                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                      Mon, December 19, 2011 - 6:16 PM
                      <I see what you are saying, let me look in to it a bit further. It does seem there could be some wiggle room, but is it strong enough to overide constitutional law?>

                      because ... ... to this point bush and obama have scrupulously adhered to the constitution, human rights treaties and u.s. law?
                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                        Mon, December 19, 2011 - 6:20 PM
                        guess jeff is flat out determined to stick with obama to the sordid lying weasel treasonous bastard stalking horse constitution shredding rampant criminality sociopathic greedweasel mass murdering bitter end ...
      • i
        i
        offline 0

        Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

        Thu, December 22, 2011 - 12:25 AM
        I admit, it was kinda entertaining to come across this post from one of Obama's greatest (former) supporters of all time, *ever*, LOL!

        Too lazy to link to/try to search for some some old threads from 2008/2007 (*if* they're even there, still), but... it's some seriously funny shit! lol

        Well, glad you're no longer delusional about Obama; slightly curious if Jeff will ever come around. ..
        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

          Sat, December 24, 2011 - 1:42 PM
          <I admit, it was kinda entertaining to come across this post from one of Obama's greatest (former) supporters of all time, *ever*, LOL!

          Too lazy to link to/try to search for some some old threads from 2008/2007 (*if* they're even there, still), but... it's some seriously funny shit! lol

          Well, glad you're no longer delusional about Obama; slightly curious if Jeff will ever come around.>

          I was not delusional about Obama, just hopeful, seeing as he was the last chance this country had to avoid a catastophic future and he HAD the intellectual and orational tools to turn this country. There was no way to KNOW what direction his presidency would go until he actually had the reins of power in his hands. I had to wait to see what he DID until making a judgement.

          Glad I'm NO LONGER delusional about Obama? ... Notice the date of this thread - TWO MONTHS after he took office. I was the first Obama supporter on this tribe to post a thread like this and attack him based on his ACTIONS after taking office. Pretty much the opposite of 'delusional'.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Tue, December 27, 2011 - 12:37 AM
            "I was the first Obama supporter on this tribe to post a thread like this and attack him based on his ACTIONS after taking office. Pretty much the opposite of 'delusional'. "

            If memory serves me correctly, that is true. I remember reading d'zoner's post critical of Obama after months of being probably his biggest supporter on here. I thought for sure zoner drank all of the Kool-aid and asked for seconds and thirds, but I was wrong.
            So you can't blame anyone for having hope, but you can blame them when they cross over into unrealistic and stubborn. I like it when people take a non-biased, logical, and non-ego driven viewpoint like that, I think that many people are so afraid to admit to themselves that they were wrong that they will never stop plugging for their guy and will think of endless excuses for him.
          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

            Tue, December 27, 2011 - 9:45 AM
            <<I was the first Obama supporter on this tribe to post a thread like this and attack him based on his ACTIONS after taking office.

            What specific ACTIONS did Obama take his first two months in office that led you to drop your support? I have asked this question before and you were never able to articulate an answer. Please be specific.
            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

              Wed, January 4, 2012 - 5:51 PM
              <What specific ACTIONS did Obama take his first two months in office that led you to drop your support? I have asked this question before and you were never able to articulate an answer. Please be specific.>

              seeing as you were THERE at the time and very BUSY posting your characteristic anal retentive painfully slavish rationalizations to my post swearing in anti-obama threads, whytf should I?
              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                Thu, January 5, 2012 - 10:34 AM
                <<whytf should I?

                I first asked this question in the first year of his term, and you could not answer then, and it seems you can't answer now. You indicated that Obama took actions that you oppposed in his first couple of months in office, why are you avoiding answering questions about your own statement?
                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                  Thu, January 5, 2012 - 12:35 PM
                  I think of asking what did Obama did wrong, the better question might be what did he do right? Like d'zoner I was willing to give Obama a chance, but I don't see a good reason to give him a second one.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Thu, January 5, 2012 - 1:37 PM
                    <<the better question might be what did he do right?

                    He did quite a bit right, where do we start? Ending DADT is one big one, as is extending insurance to a parents children until they are 26. I have a long list of accomplishments I agree with I can provide. If you are game, I will provide them and you can tell me which ones you disagree with.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                    Thu, January 5, 2012 - 3:09 PM
                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                      Fri, January 6, 2012 - 11:02 AM
                      I'm not arguing that he hasn't made any gains or accomplished anything, but I am saying how much has accomplished that applies to these historically important economic times, his campaign promises, or the tough issues of today? I do give him credit for his handling of the Libya crisis, credit card limitations, student loans and other things. But I think more has to be expected from the president.


                      thehill.com/homenews/adm...-transparency
                      www.nypost.com/p/news/nat...xOSwZUy56eO
                      www.localjobs.com/blog/2012...s-outlook/
                      projectgroundswell.com/2011/0...ogress/
                      toughmoneylove.com/2011/10/...ng-fraud/
                      www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...88.html
                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                        Fri, January 6, 2012 - 5:41 PM
                        Let's start with his campaign promises, of which he has one of the most prolific records in Presidential history. Of course no President can fulfill every single campaign promise, they face opposition and compromise (as our founding fathers designed it in to our system).

                        Politifact has been keeping track, here are the statistic:

                        Promise Kept 159
                        Compromise 50
                        Promise Broken 56
                        Stalled 65 In the Works
                        176 Not yet rated 2
                        www.politifact.com/truth-o-...obameter/

                        There are 8 pages of promises kept, let's just look at the first page.

                        Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes
                        Will extend aspects of the Bush tax cuts such as child credit expansions and changes to marriage bonuses and penalties.

                        Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
                        "Will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies. The Fund will have a peer-review selection and award process based on the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund, a state-level initiative that has awarded over $125 million to Michigan businesses with the most innovative proposals to create new products and new jobs in the state."

                        Increase minority access to capital
                        "Strengthen Small Business Administration programs that provide capital to minority-owned businesses, support outreach programs that help minority business owners apply for loans, and work to encourage the growth and capacity of minority firms."

                        Require economic justification for tax changes
                        Adopt the economic substance doctrine, a policy that states that tax changes must have significant economic justification, as a federal law.

                        Implement "Women Owned Business" contracting program
                        "Will implement the Women Owned Business contracting program that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, but has yet to be implemented by the Bush Administration." The program seeks to get more women-owned businesses to compete for federal contracts.

                        Change standards for determining broadband access
                        Will direct the Federal Communications Commission to "provide an accurate map of broadband availability using a true definition of broadband instead of the current 200 kbs standard and an assessment of obstacles to fuller broadband penetration."

                        Create a consumer-friendly credit card rating system
                        "The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards … (such as) the underwriting standards used to issue the card, the card's interest rate spread between the introductory rate and the maximum rate allowed, and transaction fees. ... Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents."

                        Establish a credit card bill of rights
                        The credit card bill of rights would "ban unilateral changes ... apply interest rate increases only to future debt ... prohibit interest on fees ... prohibit 'universal defaults' (whereby a credit card raises its rates because the consumer was late paying a different creditor ... require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments."

                        Expand loan programs for small businesses
                        Expand "the Small Business Administration's loan and micro-loan programs which provide start-up and long-term financing that small firms cannot receive through normal channels."

                        Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes
                        Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)

                        Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
                        Extend and index the temporary fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax that was passed in 2007

                        Close the "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug plan
                        "Barack Obama wants to close the 'doughnut hole' in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program that limits benefits for seniors with more than $2,250 but less than $5,100 in annual drug costs. Approximately 4 million seniors hit the doughnut hole in 2006, paying full price for drugs while also paying drug plan premiums."

                        Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program
                        Expand "the Senior Corps program, which connects individuals over the age of 55 to local volunteer opportunities, and work to provide additional security, including assistance with retirement and family-related costs, to seniors who participate in public service."

                        Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
                        Require insurance companies "to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans, regardless of their health status or history, can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums."

                        Give tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums
                        "Income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it."

                        Require large employers to contribute to a national health plan
                        "Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement."

                        Require children to have health insurance coverage
                        "Require that all children have health care coverage. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans."

                        Expand eligibility for Medicaid
                        "Expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function."

                        Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
                        "Expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function."

                        Require health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care
                        "Require health plans to disclose the percentage of premiums that actually goes to paying for patient care as opposed to administrative costs."
                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                          Sat, January 7, 2012 - 9:47 PM
                          "Let's start with his campaign promises, of which he has one of the most prolific records in Presidential history. Of course no President can fulfill every single campaign promise, they face opposition and compromise (as our founding fathers designed it in to our system). "

                          I love how you just gloss over things like his promise to bar lobbyists from his administration, and how it lasted less than a day. Which was a central plank of his campaign, along with increased transparency, and isn't dependent on compromise or evil republicans




                          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                            Mon, January 9, 2012 - 1:43 PM
                            <<and isn't dependent on compromise or evil republicans

                            And just for clarification, nowhere did I indicate that ALL broken campaign promises were due to compromise with the Republican opposition. Just that holding a standard that100% of promises must be fulfilled is impossible regardless of intent and motivation.
                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                          Sat, January 7, 2012 - 11:18 PM
                          Yes, Obama has kept promises. But I would argue that the ones he has kept are not the most significant in the terms of the emergency we are having with the US and world economies. I think most would agree the the economy is by far the biggest elephant in the room, and Obama has not done anything significant or effective to address that in his four years. Before you point out that unemployment is less terrible recently, there is no denying that these are corrupt numbers as the bureau of labor statistics has been cooking the books on unemployment stats for years.
                          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                            Sun, January 8, 2012 - 10:02 AM
                            <Before you point out that unemployment is less terrible recently, there is no denying that these are corrupt numbers as the bureau of labor statistics has been cooking the books on unemployment stats for years.>

                            do you have proof of this from legitimate sources?

                            i think this chart says more than enough about the state of the jobs market towards the end of george w. bush's term and then after obama took office. could the numbers be better? of course. but the difference is stark:

                            motherjones.com/files/imag...er_2011.jpg
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Sun, January 8, 2012 - 6:39 PM
                              I say this because since the mid nineties the bureau of labor statistics has not been looking at the labor participation rate in a truthful manner.

                              finance.townhall.com/columni...orkforce

                              Although there’s little doubt that job creation is speeding up in the private sector, unemployment is not going down as widely touted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In fact, it’s likely unchanged since the beginning of the recession because the government is deliberately undercounting the workforce to make unemployment appear to go down.

                              Missing in the latest labor report are at least 1.2 million job seekers who have been added to the civilian population over the last year but not to the work force, thereby artificially deflating the unemployment rate.

                              Chart by Zero Hedge:

                              BLS is undercounting the workforce by lowering the Labor Force Participations rates

                              They are missing in part because the BLS no longer counts people who have been unemployed for so long that they have stopped looking for work. Since 1994 the BLS has discontinued the practice of counting the “long-term discouraged workers” from the workforce. If a worker stops looking for work after a period of time, they are no longer counted in the workforce. That means that government has created a system whereby the longer a jobs recession continues, the less reliable the unemployment numbers become- to the advantage of the government.

                              In December of 2010 there were just shy of 239 million workers in the civilian pool available to the work force. In the last year, that number has risen by 1.6 million to 240.5 million people. At the same time, the officially-counted workforce as used by the BLS has risen by only 274,000 workers. At a participation rate of 64 percent, that number should be closer to 1.1 million workers. Indeed, over the last year, the participation rate has also dropped from 64.3 percent to 64 percent. In other words, fewer people from the available population are counted as available to the workforce, thereby decreasing unemployment numbers.

                              In making an apples-to-apples comparison with a year ago, the country should have about 1.2 million more workers in the workforce than the BLS currently calculates. If one accounts for those extra workers, top line unemployment is at 9 percent. But that’s not the end of the deception.
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Mon, January 9, 2012 - 1:53 PM
                              <<i think this chart says more than enough about the state of the jobs market towards the end of george w. bush's term and then after obama took office. could the numbers be better? of course. but the difference is stark:

                              I think it really shows the stark difference between Republican and Democratic economic policies. More jobs were created in Obama's first year in the Presidency than in the entire 8 years Bush was in office.
                          • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                            Mon, January 9, 2012 - 1:46 PM
                            << I think most would agree the the economy is by far the biggest elephant in the room, and Obama has not done anything significant or effective to address that in his four years.

                            That is if you discount bringing us back from the great depression cliff that Republican economic policies brought us. If anything, the stimulus was not big enough. Do you think that a bigger stimulus package could have passed considering Republican opposition?
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Tue, January 10, 2012 - 1:01 AM
                              "That is if you discount bringing us back from the great depression cliff that Republican economic policies brought us"

                              Hmmm, that's a bias and misinformed opinion for sure. You might mention Reagan's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, as many like to do. But while it did open the door, it is not the reason for all the irresponsible practices that led to the crisis, if you read deeper into it. There were plenty of non political people to blame, financial engineering in the private sector had plenty to do with things.
                              As for republican policies being more the blame them democratic ones, I'll list five democratic policies/people that contributed and then let you form your own opinion on which party is most to blame:

                              1) The roots of the crisis dates back to Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. This is when government policies started trumping sound business practices. The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods. In other words, making bad loans because we tell you to. Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more flexible criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued. The Federal reserve actually told banks that "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" and the welfare and unemployment checks were now valid income sources. Failure to comply could result in a lawsuit. The CRA was the 100% democratic policy that started it all.

                              2) Barney Frank was a cheerleader for irresponsible lending for years and had many conflicts of interest regarding personal relationships within Fannie Mae.
                              In the midst of the financial crisis of 2008, it was revealed that Frank's former partner, an executive at Fannie Mae, had been one of the foreleaders to deregulate the lending restrictions on the agency and that Frank may have acted through a conflict of interest in the 1990s.
                              He was in denial that there were any problems at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac by saying things such as “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
                              When the Bush administration recognized and recommended significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry in 2003 he and other democrats opposed it, he said "the president’s suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was inane."
                              news.investors.com/Article/...ilure.htm
                              video's: www.outsidethebeltway.com/barne...amus/T
                              Then to make matters worse he passed Dodd-Frank which is simply a too little too late bill which overregulates to the point of tying the hands of banks and lending institutions so much that they can't maneuver at all.

                              3) The Clinton Affordable Housing push had a great deal to do with making it worse but further pushing for irresponsible lending.
                              www.openmarket.org/2008/09/...meltdown/
                              His repeal of Glass-Steagall was a huge contributor to the crisis also.

                              4) Maxine Waters, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, a Barney Frank crony in pushing for irresponsible lending. And also corrupt: read about UnitedOne, the crooked bank she owned stock in and got 50 million in TARP money for and earned her an ethics probe.
                              "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

                              5) Chris Dodd, a one of the top recipients of Fannie Mae campaign contributions and notoriously in cahoots with banks . He was an important tool for corrupt companies to use. When Bush wanted more regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Dodd called on Bush to “immediately reconsider his ill-advised” reform proposals.
                              Countrywide gave him below-market mortgage rates on two of his homes as a result of his membership in the “Friends of Angelo” program. In 2008, Dodd proposed a bailout bill that included helping Countrywide. Ethics probe.







                              • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                Tue, January 10, 2012 - 10:16 AM
                                <<"That is if you discount bringing us back from the great depression cliff that Republican economic policies brought us"

                                Hmmm, that's a bias and misinformed opinion for sure.<>>

                                Certainly there were many and varied reasons for the economic collapse, but the simple fact remains that it was made considerably worse by Bush's economic policies. We know this to be true even before the collapse. 1.) Never in the history of the United States have we cut taxes for the rich while fighting a war overseas. 2.) Trickle down Reaganomics is a demonstrated failure, it did not create jobs for the entire 8 years Bush was President. 3.) The US created more jobs in the first year of Obama's presidency than the entire 8 years of the Bush administration.

                                << In other words, making bad loans because we tell you to. Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more flexible criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

                                That may have been a small part of it, but the crisis never happened until Bush considerably expanded and directed Freddie and Fannie to provide loans to low income Americans that would have never otherwise qualified for a loan. Here is Bush promoting this expansion in 2002, watch the entire thing and how he specifically tasked Freddie and Fannie to be the private industry companies to lead the way with these bad loans.
                                www.youtube.com/watch

                                That said, I don't think all Democrats are without blame. But what I do think is that Bush's irrisponsible policies helped to lead to the meltdown, AND to the increase in massive debt. And even before the meltdown, Bush's policies were not creating jobs, and his two unpaid for wars were eating up what was previously a surplus created under Clinton. And while the recovery is certainly sluggish, it is leaps and bounds ahead of Bush's own record even before the crisis. As a matter of fact, Reagan himself had 10% unemployment at this point in his term, Obama has 8.5%.

                                I have also looked at history, and the US has done considerably better under Democratic administrations. That is with the exception of the Eisenhower administration and the booming economic times his administration oversaw. But we must remember that Eisenhower did not adhere to any sort of trickle down economics, those boom times happened while Eisenhower imposed the highest tax rate on the rich in US history.

                                P.S. As always with discussing the issues with you, I appreciate the fact that you can disagree without being disagreeable marc. You are always a pleasure to debate, regardless of whether we disagree or not. Cheers. :)
                                • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                  Tue, January 10, 2012 - 4:38 PM
                                  The real point I was trying to make is that I don't think the current economic crisis should be labeled as either a republican or democratic problem. Both parties were irresponsible and I think we just had also had a certain amount of corrupt and/or plain unqualified decision makers. We both have our own opinion on which side is more to blame but it doesn't really matter. Obama definatly didn't help the situation by bringing in a bunch of semi-corrupt wall street insiders from Goldman to try to "fix" things, but that is usually the Democratic solution, to throw money at the problem (freshly minted in this case). I forgot to mention in my post about Obama's unemployment numbers being dishonest, that seasonal workers were included in the last report.
                                  I think our economy will eventually recover, not because of Obama but in spite of him, because of simple natural economic cycles. I think you know that I like Ron Paul because the more liberal economic views he proposes are more honest, bi-partisan, would get rid of what doesn't work. The economy will recover two or three times faster under him. But that being said, I don't truthfully think Paul will get the nomination because people just don't understand Paul and he is too honest and plain looking to be an effective "made for TV" campaigner, speech giver, and spin doctor like Obama is.


                                  And thanks for the kind words, likewise regarding you. It is unfortunate when people can't disagree politically without being nasty. You just got to have a thick skin though, because politics can stir up a lot of emotions. I know there are a lot of words going around, but I'd like to think that everyone here can respect other opinions and try to understand different points of view (very probable I'm wrong about that though).
                                  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                    Tue, January 10, 2012 - 5:31 PM
                                    Certainly we can agree to disagree, I also have my opinions as to who I think owns a larger share of the blame, and I am sure you can guess where I stand in that regard. :)

                                    <<I think you know that I like Ron Paul because the more liberal economic views he proposes are more honest, bi-partisan, would get rid of what doesn't work.

                                    I was not aware that Ron Paul had any liberal economic views. Can you elaborate?

                                    <<And thanks for the kind words, likewise regarding you. It is unfortunate when people can't disagree politically without being nasty.

                                    I find myself getting drug in to the gutter at times and am trying my best to rise above it. Nobody is going to learn anything by engaging in overly personalized pissing matches. And while I may have an argumentative nature, my primary reason for being here is because debate is inspiration for my views to develop and grow.
                                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                      Tue, January 10, 2012 - 7:46 PM
                                      >>I find myself getting drug in to the gutter at times and am trying my best to rise above it. Nobody is going to learn anything by engaging in overly personalized pissing matches. And while I may have an argumentative nature, my primary reason for being here is because debate is inspiration for my views to develop and grow.

                                      Ahahahahaha... perhaps some of us have just been around long enough to know better.

                                      And some of us don't take kindly to plagiarism, or being lied to, or lied about.
                                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                      Tue, January 10, 2012 - 9:02 PM
                                      "I was not aware that Ron Paul had any liberal economic views. Can you elaborate? "

                                      His views on tearing down needless redtape and bureaucracies as well as his hands off policies on freedoms, personal and otherwise, are pretty liberal really. Maybe not adopted by the "liberal party" or fit to their adjusted meanings, but liberal in the true sense of the word.

                                      Yes, debate does help develop and grow your mind and keep you informed, which is what keeps me in this tribe. Because no matter how smart you think you are, you still probably don't know the half of it.

                                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                        Wed, January 11, 2012 - 10:25 AM
                                        <<His views on tearing down needless redtape and bureaucracies as well as his hands off policies on freedoms, personal and otherwise, are pretty liberal really

                                        I don't view streamlining as either liberal or conservative, it is just good business practice. Also, Ron Paul's version of "tearing down......bureacracies" is to eliminate liberal and progressive programs, so I don't view that as liberal either. Freedoms, personal and otherwise I would derinately agree with, at least as it relates to modern conservatism vs liberalism. Economically Ron Paul is as copnservative as it gets, but takes a more liberal stance as it relates to foreign policy. Ultimately Ron Paul is a Conservative in the old school vein, socially progressive (in some ways), isolationist by nature, and economically conservative.
                                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                          Wed, January 11, 2012 - 10:38 AM
                                          "I don't view streamlining as either liberal or conservative"

                                          actually removing needless bureaucratic redtape is a fundamental aspect of economic liberalism


                                          "Also, Ron Paul's version of "tearing down......bureacracies" is to eliminate liberal and progressive programs, so I don't view that as liberal either"

                                          then you don't understand what the term means in relation to economic policy


                                          definitions.uslegal.com/e/econ...ralism/


                                          " Economically Ron Paul is as copnservative as it gets"

                                          only if you have absolutely no idea of what you speak of: liberalism isn't whatever is adopted by the democratic party
                                  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                    Tue, January 10, 2012 - 8:13 PM
                                    <But that being said, I don't truthfully think Paul will get the nomination because people just don't understand Paul and he is too honest and plain looking to be an effective "made for TV" campaigner, speech giver, and spin doctor like Obama is.>

                                    i think plenty of people understand who paul is and what he stands for. it's not like he's a new commodity in the vein of bachmann. he's been in congress since the mid-1980s. he's also run for president three times now. if people don't understand him, then he's not doing a very good job of explaining himself.

                                    also, keep in mind that the whole recession started on george w. bush's watch and it's not like it started in 2000 or 2001 when you could possibly, though not very successfully, argue it was caused by clinton. of course, clinton generated a surplus and presided over a booming economy. things hit the shitter once dubya came to town. it was his, and republican's, laissez-faire, let business do what they may, economic policy that led to this shit show we are currently in. while obama obviously could have done more (i personally think the stimulus was too small), he was rebuffed at every turn by republicans who thought that 4 more years of republican economic policy would do the trick. instead we got muddled policy and thats why i think you are seeing a muddled recovery.

                                    here's an interesting take:
                                    www.economist.com/blogs/fre...y_policy_4

                                    while you may consider the employment numbers to be voodoo, the majority of washington and the media don't, and, let's be honest, that's what really matters if we're going to talk politics.

                                    for levity:
                                    ronpaulswanson.tumblr.com/
                                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                      Tue, January 10, 2012 - 8:38 PM
                                      you can't blame this entirely on republicans (though they deserve lots of blame). After all, at one point he was operating with a super majority. The fact is, Rahm's policy of supporting any electable candidate with a (D) behind their name, regardless of actual position, came back to bit the democrats in the ass. Also, everything proposed by this administration tends to be focus grouped to irrelevancy
                                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                      Tue, January 10, 2012 - 9:09 PM
                                      <also, keep in mind that the whole recession started on george w. bush's watch and it's not like it started in 2000 or 2001 when you could possibly, though not very successfully, argue it was caused by clinton.>

                                      because clinton didn't invite goldman sachs en-masse into his administration to run his treasury and financial policy? and rubin and his acolyte summers weren't the driving force behind nafta, which removed all barriers to outsourcing american jobs and they weren't also the architects and driving force behind the massive de-regulation of the financial sector that was the foundation for all the rampant excesses that followed? and because clinton didn't re-nominate greenspan who was THE most instumental person behind the subsequent total lack of regulation of the remaining financial statutes and the monetary policy during the bush years that drove the housing bubble and the subsequent economic collapse?

                                      yeah, there's just no possible credible argument bill clinton was responsible for setting the stage for what happened during the bush years.
                                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                        Tue, January 10, 2012 - 9:35 PM
                                        Yeah, I'm always amazed when people ignore summers and his influence across two democratic administrations. I'm also equally amazed when people cite volcker as evidence this administration was attempting to turn the tide on these issues (ignoring the fact that he resigned out of frustration with it
                                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                        Tue, January 10, 2012 - 10:22 PM
                                        i was more speaking towards the mortgage crisis and collapse in home prices but sure i guess we can blame every president going back to fdr for setting up some part of the deregulation of the financial markets.
                                        • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                          Wed, January 11, 2012 - 12:50 PM
                                          the problem is that the Clinton administration didn't have some minor bit part in the events that lead to economic collapse. We're talking about players that should get top billing
                                    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                                      Tue, January 10, 2012 - 9:40 PM
                                      "i think plenty of people understand who paul is and what he stands for. it's not like he's a new commodity in the vein of bachmann. he's been in congress since the mid-1980s. he's also run for president three times now. if people don't understand him, then he's not doing a very good job of explaining himself. "

                                      Ya, I don't think he explains himself well to the typical American who really just wants to hear fireworks and fancy speeches. He's too honest and tells people the truth that they don't want to hear. I think the masses who don't follow politics as well as people in this tribe find it easy to dismiss him since he is not a media darling and talks honestly without pandering. I think he's the best candidate but his campaigning/lying/hyping abilities worry me.
                            • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                              Tue, January 10, 2012 - 7:32 AM
                              "That is if you discount bringing us back from the great depression cliff that Republican economic policies brought us. If anything, the stimulus was not big enough. Do you think that a bigger stimulus package could have passed considering Republican opposition?"


                              lol @ this mindless fanboy nut-hugging. Jeff, if you could manage to pry Obama's testicles from your mouth you might consider that Larry Summers was Obama's go to economic guy, his part in the collapse, that the economy is anything but healthy, and that Obama's stimulus has been panned by economists on the right and left.

                              But if you want to continue with the political commentary that amounts to "bringz th'noize" please carry on. I can always use a good laugh



                      • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

                        Sun, January 8, 2012 - 10:08 AM
                        no president is going to accomplish everything they lay out in their campaigns. i had no illusions that obama would get everything he promised done. however, when it comes down to it, my line of thinking is this: would i rather have obama in office, who is mildly better on social issues, or mccain in office, who would have been an extension of the bush years, even with the false rhetoric that he passed off as being a maverick? not to mention the fact that mccain chose the worst possible vice presidential candidate in recent history. i'd choose obama over mccain 100 out of 100 times.
  • !!! WAR WITH IRAN IMMANENT !!!

    Sat, April 28, 2012 - 7:49 PM
    It's a comin boys, it's a comin ... and it's my dear old alma mater the uss enterprise that's a gonna take one last hit for the power and the glory!!

    yippy ki yay, motherfockers.

    www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/24-5
    • i
      i
      offline 0

      wow... commondreams is a rare exception...

      Sun, April 29, 2012 - 6:33 AM

      wow... commondreams is a rare exception... it actually got better.

      thanks for linking.
      • Re: wow... commondreams is a rare exception...

        Sun, April 29, 2012 - 12:45 PM
        I doubt if we would ever attack Iran, Russia and China would definitely object.
        • Re: wow... commondreams is a rare exception...

          Sun, April 29, 2012 - 5:03 PM
          if the purpose of attacking iran would be to shore up the dollar as the worlds reserve currency (which is definitely the case) and russia and china are leading the charge to dethrone the dollar as the worlds reserve currency, i would have to question the significance of said objections to those that would attack iran.

          on the other hand, it is 5 minutes to armegeddon.
          • Re: wow... commondreams is a rare exception...

            Mon, April 30, 2012 - 3:12 PM
            2000sOn 25 April 2001, Enterprise began her 17th overseas deployment with CVW-8. From 18–28 June, the carrier and four escorts participated in an exercise with the British Royal Navy in a joint and combined warfare training exercise in the North Sea, near the Hebrides Islands and in Scotland.

            Enterprise was beginning her voyage home from the Persian Gulf when the September 11 attacks were carried out. Without orders, the carrier returned at flank speed to the waters off Southwest Asia near the Persian Gulf, outrunning her escorts. In October 2001, the United States launched air attacks against Al Qaeda training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan. The actions were designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. Over three weeks, aircraft from Enterprise flew nearly 700 missions and dropped large amounts of ordnance over Afghanistan. On 10 November, the carrier arrived at her home port of Norfolk, Virginia, 16 days later than originally planned. During her last day at sea, the ship hosted a live two-hour broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America. Garth Brooks performed a concert with Jewel from Enterprise on 21 November while she was docked in Norfolk, Virginia. The concert was carried live on CBS.

            In January 2002, Enterprise entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia for a scheduled one-year Extended Dry Docking Selected Restricted Availability.

            [edit] Operation Iraqi FreedomIn 2003–2004, the carrier provided air support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2004, the ship participated in Summer Surge 2004 and several multinational exercises.

            In May 2006, Enterprise departed for a six-month deployment, operating in the 6th, 5th and 7th Fleet areas, and supported both Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. She returned to Norfolk 18 November 2006.

            On 19 December 2007, the carrier returned home after a six-month deployment in the Persian Gulf.[28]

            In April 2008, Enterprise entered the Northrop-Grumman Newport News shipyard for a scheduled 18 month Extended Docking Selected Restricted Availability, with a projected completion date of September 2009. As maintenance was performed, costs continued to rise above projections and the completion date repeatedly slid. Enterprise, the oldest active combat vessel in the Navy, was scheduled to be decommissioned as late as 2014. On April 6, 2009, Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that he was seeking a congressional dispensation to speed up the process to decommission Enterprise. Under this new timetable, the ship would complete one final deployment before being decommissioned in late 2012 or early 2013. This would temporarily reduce the U.S. Navy to having only ten active aircraft carriers through the launch of the Gerald R. Ford in 2015. In October 2009, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees agreed with the recommendation, approving the decommissioning of Enterprise in 2013 after 51 years of service.[11]

            [edit] 2010sIn April 2010, the Navy announced that the cost of refurbishing the carrier had risen to $655 million and was scheduled to be completed the same month.[29] On April 19, 2010, Enterprise left the Northrop Grumman shipyard to conduct sea trials in preparation for return to the fleet.[30] The total cost of refurbishing the carrier was $662 million, which was 46% over budget and took eight months longer than originally scheduled. The Navy stated that it planned to use the carrier for two six-month deployments before her scheduled decommissioning date in 2013.[31]

            On 1 January 2011, the Virginian-Pilot leaked highlights from the final video of a set entitled "XO Movie Night" that was filmed on Enterprise and aired via closed circuit television on select Saturday evenings. The videos, which were not meant to be released outside of the command, were produced by Capt. Owen Honors when he was executive officer (XO) of the ship in the 2006–2007 timeframe and included profanity, anti-gay slurs, and sexually suggestive scenes.[32][33] Capt. Honors received public support from Navy personnel,[34] but on 4 January 2011, Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., the commander of the United States Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk removed Honors for demonstrating poor judgment. Capt. Dee Mewbourne was appointed as replacement commander.[35] Forty officers and enlisted sailors, including six flag officers, were later disciplined to varying extents over the incident.[36]

            The carrier and her strike group deployed on January 13, 2011. Accompanying the carrier on the cruise to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean were Carrier Air Wing One, guided missile cruiser Leyte Gulf, and guided missile destroyers Barry, Bulkeley, and Mason.[37] In February 2011 the Enterprise was involved in an incident with Somali pirates, an event which ended in the deaths of four American citizens and four pirates.[38]

            The carrier returned to Norfolk on 15 July 2011. During its deployment, it had participated in operations which had captured 75 Somali pirates and had missile strikes by its strike group against the Libyan government.[39] On April 9, 2012, the Navy announced that the Enterprise was assigned to join the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf. The mission was described as routine, not a response to a specific threat. Upon completion of this mission, the Enterprise is scheduled to be deactivated (Fall 2012).[40]

            [edit] Future prospectsEnterprise will be the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to be decommissioned.[41] Petitioners and naval enthusiasts have requested the Enterprise be converted into a museum, including a 2009 Internet-based petition.[42][43] However, while costs of doing so regarding her nuclear reactors has yet to be calculated by the United States Department of Defense, by 2012 they had been deemed too expensive to make such an effort practical [13]. A petition has also been set up for the next carrier (CVN-80) to be named as the ninth USS Enterprise.[44]

            Newport News Shipbuilding will deactivate and de-fuel the ship after her decommissioning.[45] The process is scheduled to begin Summer 2013 and be completed in 2015.[13] Once the Navy dismantles and recycles the ship's reactors, there will be very little left to turn into a museum;[42] virtually everything two decks below the hangar bay would have to be cut apart.[42] What remains of Enterprise following 2015 is currently scheduled to be taken to the State of Washington for scrapping. [13] However, it remains possible the ship's island could be removed and used as a memorial.[42]

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_...-65)#2010s
    • Re: !!! WAR WITH IRAN IMMANENT !!!

      Mon, April 30, 2012 - 2:50 PM
      And just to put this in context, the USS enterprise has had regular tours in the Persian Gulf throughout it's lifetime, including multiple tours in the last number of years. Ultimately you have been saying that war with Iran is around the corner since GW Bush was president, and now you are trying to infer that some false flag operation is upon us because the Enterprise is taking it's turn in rotation in the Persian Gulf, as it always has. In other words, this deployment is meaningless to what you are suggesting.
  • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

    Fri, October 5, 2012 - 10:05 AM
    obama has two more items on his agenda, throwing the election to mittens and signing the 'grand compromise'.

    atta boy.
    • Re: F.U.C.K - Y.O.U - O.B.A.M.A.

      Tue, October 9, 2012 - 11:51 PM
      There is not much doubt in my mind that he doesn't really want a 2nd term as bad as he wanted the 1st.. I wouldn't go as far as saying he is throwing it though, he's going though the motions to appease his financial backers. I think it's mostly that he knows that he is in a no win situation and he really doesn't have any significant accomplishments to back himself up besides ObamaCare, which is probably mission accomplished for him..