And a poke in the eye is better than two pokes in the eye.:eek:

There is no doubt that many people are satisfied with what is coming from Washington, I am not one of them. The credit card reform legislation actually does very little to help people who are in the most need of help - if we are honest about people being held accountable for being irresponsible and taking excessive risks, I understand - but why not apply that same logic to the companies that got "bailed out"? I need to stop making a connection between companies getting billions of dollars in tax payer money to bail them out, while they screw the American public. It is clear the only people outraged are the ones who make that connection.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

Perhaps indicating that you understand that there is a basis for my opinion would better indicate that you "got it", even if you disagree with my conclusion. For example with health care reform Obama is on tape saying he wants a single payer system, he is on tape saying it may take 5, 10 or 15 years to get there. Now the WH is saying people are taking his comments out of context, that he is a victim. Is that bullshit or what?

Should I start: Obama = Good. Leading people to infer that you should have no credibility in you comments about Obama because whatever he does will always be good to you? Would that be helpful? I can play games too, is that what we want?

Well, I'm not sure what you want. I asked for clarification on a few points in your commentary and you answered each question with a non sequitor. I don't know if you were trying to be absurd or if you believe you were answering the questions, but it seems to me that anyone else reading them would just think you're playing games.

Pointing out the content of an article you linked doesn't say anything about what you're using it for and your response is that the editorial board is left-leaning.
When I ask you "How..." and you respond with "Yes."
"Explain this discrepancy" by talking about being fucked in the ass

Then it becomes clear you're not invested in discussing your opinion but really just engaging in illogical ravings.

What's our responsibility to take the lunatic on the street corner seriously?
That's what you appear to be acting like...so why would you be surprised if people just politely mollify you and move on?

If I did not answer your request for clarification, I am willing to revisit it - give me the post #.

Perhaps I don't understand your point.

There are people who are eligible for the program who have not taken action.
There are people who took excessive risks and got themselves into a bad situation.
And, there are people who simply do not qualify. If that is a given, it still does not change the fact that financial institutions have taken advantage of the tax payer. They are being overtly defiant given billions in bonuses paid, and in some cases posting record profits. This is happening under a president who ran on the notion that he is going to look out for the little guy. Some people won't even try to get the help they qualify for because of pride or misinformation. This is happening under a president who is a great communicator, and has had more press conferences/town hall meetings/etc., than any president in my life time - he could influence people to act. CEO's of financial firms testify at hearings and get a verbal thrashing, but then go back and raise fees/interest rates/restrict credit/increase foreclosure activity and lay people off.

So, tell me - what is your point about the editorial board?

Of course I am illogical to you, just as you are illogical to me. I am totally confused by your lack of outrage. I am totally confused that you don't understand my point. I am totally confused how you fail to see that Obama is a bullshit artist.

You make your choices. If I am the only one with my views I am easy to not take seriously. If I am not, if I were you I would want to understand the illogical ravings. the choice is yours - the red pill or the green?

{added}

Here is somthing to chew on when you get your next credit card bill. From today's WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124951576916509361.html

Dude. Don't even play that. I've been very vocal about the criticisms I have of Obama's first several months.

The difference between you and me is, I try to base my view on facts, and you try to base facts on your view.

This view presented here is based on fact? You know that I develop a view and then find facts to support it, that I do not base my point of view on facts first. The reality is that there are facts to support my views, and perhaps you simply don't like those facts.

It continues to amuse me to the degree that I will post something, even include some outside source or even some facts, and the focus turns to me rather than the issue presented. Reminds me of a technique commonly used by, shall we say - Obama. Regardless of the merits of a criticism, the people making the criticism are just so, so, mean and dishonest in the way they go about attacking our poor constantly attacked President. Obama is so, so misunderstood. Obama is such a victim, and then I have the nerve to subject the readers here to illogical rantings not based on facts. Ace=bad. I got it. So, how about those Cubs...sorry...White Sox?:rolleyes:

I'm reminded of something my father told me once. He said, "Son? Don't argue with crazy."

Sorry, Dad. Won't happen again.

Ace, this is the way the screw turns in TFP Politics: I can't argue with your point, so I'll just call you names. "Crazy," for example. See how easy it is. I just won the debate.

It's brilliant that personal attacks are not condoned around here. Just brilliant.

I'm curious what points you think ace made about the credit card bill of rights legislation that Obama signed as not being in the interest of the "little guy"?

Nearly every consumer advocacy organization in the country praised the bill, despite the fact that it may not have gone far enough:

"This is probably the strongest piece of consumer legislation to pass Congress in a decade," said Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America.

"That's a big win," said Ed Mierzwinksi of US Public Interest Research Groups. "It gets rid of any 'gotcha" tricks."

"The bill picks up where the Fed's rules leave off, protecting all Americans from unjustified or excessive fees and stopping retroactive interest rate hikes that only bury struggling families in insurmountable debt..." said Lauren Saunders, Managing Attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.

Where's the beef in ace's bitching?

I noticed something similar in the healthcare thread. I state a simple opinion and BAM! I get nailed. Totally came out of left field. Didn't see that coming at all. Guess I shoulda read more than the original post.

I also like how select questions that I ask are ignored. I ask about personal experience with the topic. Oh wait, the guy just got his stats off of google. Jeez....

I'll say (on topic) that I don't feel obama has done shit other than replace bush. Any inactive president could have replaced bush and been a better guy than the last. The market is moving in a natural flow it seems, rather than being pushed uphill by a presidential force.

Health care...what is it in the expansion of the S-CHIP program that Obama signed that Bush vetoed twice that extends health care to an additional 4 million children of working class families (but who do not receive health care benefits from employers) that is not helping "the little guy"?

There used to be a sticky up top that informed folks that it was okay to call bullshit when you see it. That's how the screw turns here. It isn't personal- it's just that you can't tell someone that they're full of shit without referring directly to them.

This is a recurring problem with Ace, because he frequently pretends to lack the ability to either a) see causal links where they exist and/or b) not create causal links where none exist. So he cites information to back up his position that actually has nothing to do, or is only tangentially related to, his position. Then, when someone tries to reconcile this mismatch with him, he either pretends to not understand, reiterates his original position as if it still made sense, or says something else that is only tangentially related to the topic at hand.

It is a waste of time to argue with someone who seems to have such tenuous grasp of logic.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

We're talking about feelings here, dc. Facts have little bearing.

What about the point that the guy who is currently paying 20%+ , trying to do the right thing, is still paying 20%+? This is the same guy that may have been paying 10% a few months ago.

This is happening in an environment where these banks and get capital for 1% or less, they get billions in bailouts, the pay billions in bonuses, and one company in particular made record profits.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

SChip is not new. How many more children are insured today than under Bush or what percentage? What about the net impact adjusting for increased regressive taxes to pay for the program.

Also, I already stated that the statement was hyperbole. One of the differences between me and you is that when I get called on using hyperbole or exaggerating to accentuate a point, I acknowledge it. Hyperbole or exaggeration aside, the primary point is still on the table, Obama is a bullshit artist - he says one thing to one group and will say the opposite to another - he creates false choices - he hedges his comments to provide cover for whatever actually happens....

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

Mostly, when I ask a specific followup question, it does not get a direct answer or is completely ignored.

Like now, I am going to ask you to direct me to a specific example that illustrates what you are talking about. Just give me a thread and a starting post #.


Is this an exaggeration to accentuate a point or a bit of hyperbole?

This is exactly the point filtherton was making when he noted:

This is a recurring problem with Ace, because he frequently pretends to lack the ability to either a) see causal links where they exist and/or b) not create causal links where none exist. So he cites information to back up his position that actually has nothing to do, or is only tangentially related to, his position. Then, when someone tries to reconcile this mismatch with him, he either pretends to not understand, reiterates his original position as if it still made sense, or says something else that is only tangentially related to the topic at hand.

You consistently display an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge anything positive of any legislation or policy that does not conform with your pre-disposed ideology.

Instead you attempt to make the case in some convoluted manner that because such legislation or policies may not be perfect or go far enough (often because of Republican opposition), the good things they accomplish in helping the "little guys" are failures of Obama, the "bullshit artist."

Here. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2580359

See also: many other posts in that thread.

The short version is that you attempted use a single point of data as evidence for the existence of a trend. You can't do this and expected to be taken seriously. That's like using today's local high temperature alone as evidence that it is cooler today than it was yesterday. Without rereading the whole thread, it seemed like you were under the impression that the fact that you know people who wouldn't send their kids to a Chicago public school meant that Obama's choice for Secretary of Education did nothing to improve the schools while he was in charge of them. While it quite possibly might be true that the dude in question did not do anything to improve the Chicago Public School System, your basis for believing that he did nothing to improve the Chicago Public School System was erroneous. When I pointed your faulty reasoning out to you, you just restated it. Then you left me hanging.

This type of thing is fairly common and I would scare up more examples if I thought it would make any sort of difference. But it doesn't because in the end, you're going to read the evidence however the hell you want to and believe whatever the hell you want to believe. And this isn't even to single you out, because many other folks here do the exact same thing regardless of which side of the aisle they happen to reside on.

Nope. See the third to last sentence in post #509.

Or this:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...-nom-op-5.html

Where certain folks *knew* that Obama was just hankerin to keep the white man down via his supreme court nominee...

You have to be kidding. The Chicago public school system is generally a failure and has been for decades. This is common knowledge. Obama did not send his children to Chicago Public Schools. The Chicago school system is administratively top heavy, union dominated, and has an above acceptable level of incompetent teachers. Certainly there are some good schools and many successes, but on a whole anyone with real choice would not choose to send a child they love to a Chicago Public school. If you don't accept that, I suggest going to Chicago and spend a day talking to students, parents, concerned citizens, and those who moved out of the city because of the schools. I understand why we can not have a real serious discussion, we seem to exist in alternative realities. This is a recurring theme.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

Given limited time, what is the value in using it to point out what I like about a piece of legislation? My nature is to focus on what needs improvement.

{added}

Here is the latest Chicago Public School issue, wonder how long this has been going on and I wonder who is actually surprised:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...27067&ft=3&f=3

Hunh! Your nature changed radically on January 20, 2009.

If you check, my support of Bush was mostly for the Iraq war, straight talk and tax cuts. I did not support his bailout, inability to control excessive government spending, and certain things like his support of excise taxes on steel. On some other issues like the AG firings, Plame, executive power - I simply understood his actions and was surprised by the victim mentality coming from Democrats, especially those with political power. I saw those issues as more a commentary on the critics than on Bush. Bush seemed to know he was in a fight, Democrats did not.

Yes, and? You're proving my point. The fact that Chicago Public Schools may or may not suck is irrelevant. You argued that Obama's choice for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan,a was a bad choice because he had done nothing to improve the Chicago Public School System while he was in charge of it. The basis of your lack of faith in his efforts to improve the school system? That none of your friends would send their kids to a Chicago Public School and that Chicago Public Schools are poorly rated.

Nevermind that Chicago is notoriously corrupt or that even noncorrupt teachers unions are notorious cock-blockers when it comes to any sort of systematic change that doesn't preserve or enhance the slice of power they've managed to carve out for themselves. Nevermind that some test scores have improved, or that he (Arne Duncan) supports merit-based pay. Nope. You know some people who wouldn't send their kids to a Chicago Public School so clearly Arne Duncan sucks and hasn't done anything to improve Chicago Public Schools. Chicago Schools are bad right now, so Arne Duncan has never done anything to improve them.

I think my point was that it was a patronage choice and had less to do with objective qualifications in terms of results than with the two being "buddies", or the "Chicago way". I acknowledged that the choice was well educated and qualified. I was clear in saying that I would have chosen someone who actually got some results or who lead a successful school system. So, I am not even sure you understood the point I was making, and you did not seem to ask for clarification.

I understood your point. I also understood that you had no real objective basis for believing that Duncan was unqualified (or at least you didn't have one that you could actually communicate) Your conclusion, that Duncan's appointment was more based on patronage than qualifications, depended entirely on your assertion that Duncan lacked qualification. The fact that you are unable to actually support your assertion that Duncan was unqualified with anything close to actual evidence leads me to believe that your conclusion is erroneous.

Here's what you said:
Then, when someone asked you for some sort of objective information to support your assertion that Duncan's "performance had been poor based on actually improving academic performance relative to other professionals who may be better qualified" your response was to either cite folks you know personally who don't like the quality of Chicago Public Schools or cite a single year's worth of data. As far as evidence goes, neither of those things is all that compelling. Your friends' opinions, while no doubt important during cocktail parties, don't constitute definitive evidence of anything, at least as far as I can tell. Are any of them licensed school district inspectors perhaps?

The other links you provided (unless I missed some) were snapshots and were thus not the appropriate information from which to draw conclusions about general trends (i.e. whether the Chicago Public School system had been improving). What you were doing was similar to trying to draw conclusions about the acceleration of a car traveling smoothly down the road by looking at a still picture of it.

So to reiterate: I understood your position. I also understood, with your help, that your basis for that position wasn't grounded in reality or the rules of logic.

I stop here because it is clear you did not understand my post. I did not say Duncan was not qualified. How can I present my point of view or respond when you simply don't understand my point regarding being qualified compared to being the the best qualified individual available. I clearly see why you are having problems understanding what followed the post that you listed. It is not my problem.

Right. Poor choice of words on my part. In the one sentence (which wasn't even really relevant to the point I was making) you chose to respond to please replace "qualified" with "less qualified". Now, by all means, explain to me how you weren't blowing smoke in the other thread.

I am going based on memory, I recall posting that there have been people in charge of other large school systems that have actually gotten positive results from implementing innovative ideas and from strong leadership. These people may have been better choices, given a "change" agenda - you know proven results. I also, suggested that Duncan be given more time in Chicago to see if he can actually have an impact. If your point was that I did not give you enough statistical information or that I did not give you, the unknown to me, number of citations to support that the Chicago school system is among the worst in the nation, that would convince you, I got that point along time ago. At some point I think I wrote that if you don't accept what I know, do your own homework.

My point was that your premise was flawed because it was based on flawed assumptions. No amount of me "doing my own homework" will validate your assumptions because you yourself didn't bother to check their validity (or even necessarily acknowledge their existence).

Whether your perspective is ultimately correct or not is irrelevant. A broken clock is right twice a day (provided it's mechanical). Frequently, the chain of logic by which a conclusion is reached is just as important as the conclusion itself. Your chain of logic was flawed, and my attempts to point out the flaws to you were met with indifference or avoidance.

This is just one example of what it's like arguing with you. Normally I wouldn't bother with this type of exposition, but you asked.

so far so good...

Obama again shows a lack of courage by not defending one of his people, Van Jones. Van Jones' past/present political views and actions were no secret. I think if Obama said to Jones, 'you have my support', Jones would have went toe to toe with his critics. It is unbelievable to me that the Obama administration let people like Beck dictate the people who stay or leave within his administration. It is unbelievable to me that liberals walk away from this blaming conservatives rather than blaming Obama for being passive. Obama needed to either fire Jones or stand behind him, publicly in my view. That is what leadership is about - sending clear messages to those who you lead.

Obama did not order Van Jones' resignation, adviser says - CNN.com

So what do we take from this? I bet Glenn Beck celebrated.

And another tidbit illustrating Obama's double speak. Remember when he ran for President scolding Bush's policy of extending deployments for troops? Now we have:

AFGHANISTAN: More Marines ordered to stay longer | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times

I guess it is not a big deal, is it? I guess it is Bush's fault, isn't it? What's next? Well we do have this:

Obama Moves Closer to Darth Cheney on Torture: Margaret Carlson - Bloomberg.com

So wait, you don't like Obama?!?!?!??!

I bet I could give a thousand reasons why I think Obama is not worthy of my trust, I bet I could give a thousand reasons why I don't support his view concerning the role of the federal government, I bet I could give a thousand reasons why I don't support some of his important policy initiatives, I bet I could include some reasons why I think he has been good for American politics (i.e.-motivating many young people to get involved in politics when they would have been apathetic), and the best response I would get is - "you don't like Obama"... "Obama=bad"..., therefore suggesting, that is the only reason I don't support him and his policies. That is pretty weak. The only thing weaker, in my opinion, is when respondents ignore issues and focus on personal attacks. Which, I bet will follow. I don't think they can resist it, can you?:rolleyes:

The biggest flaw in any of your arguments is when you are asked a direct question you can not answer it. You have no valid response so you must deflect to a totally irrelevant topic and claim some sort of false victory in your head regarding the debate.

What direct question are you referring to?

By the way the above is what I consider a direct question.

You could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you think Obama is not worthy of my trust, you could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you don't support his view concerning the role of the federal government, you could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you don't support some of his important policy initiatives, you could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you think he has been good for American politics (i.e.-motivating many young people to get involved in politics when they would have been apathetic), and then when the questionable logic of your erroneous assertions was exposed, you'd just change the subject or feign ignorance.

Right, well by your own definition, your propensity to ignore structural or logical issues with your own arguments is weak. It is not a personal attack to point out flaws in your argument. It is not a personal attack to point out specific patterns of behavior that impede meaningful dialogue.

The only reason I responded like I did in post 528 is because I've learned my lesson about trying to engage you on anything political. Arguing with you is a waste of time, because you seem to be unable to acknowledge shortcomings in your perspective (or to persuasively rebut criticisms of your perspective) when they are pointed out. I don't feel like being a sounding board for your half-baked ideas, even on the occasions when I agree with them.

Half baked? Lack of logic?

Obama campaigns complaining about extending troop deployments. As President he extends troop deployments. I conclude his campaign rhetoric was bullshit. I tell you he has no credibility in my view.

Point out the flaw.

No one campaigning for the presidency are privy to top secret information, especially concerning national security. So without a full understanding of the situation it's easy to claim you will do one thing or another until you are actually briefed as president and realise there is a reason these things are going on.

I disagree with the notion that a candidate can say whatever they want and then use the excuse of being privy to secrete information. I expect candidates to show informed restraint when criticizing sitting Presidents.


How about this:

On labor day Obama talks about how Republicans or critics of his health care plan don't have one of their own, isn't that simply a lie? Here is a proposed plan from a Republican.

Patients' Choice Act

Point out the flaw in my concluding Obama lied in his speech Monday.

Healthcare legislation is irrelevant to your point that obama promised not to extend troop deployment. The reason for his decision is stated in my above post.

It was an example supporting my view that Obama lacks credibility and is not worthy of my trust. I apologize for confusing the point with giving additional evidence. I think I may have a better understanding of why so many here have problems following me and why you said what you said earlier. Like a juggler putting too many balls in the air, gets hard to follow:


Opps, another ball in the air, darn.

Why? It'd be a waste of time. You'd most likely just dance around or change the subject because that's what you do.

It is what I am good at, it is what I have to offer..., sorry I was inspired by Obama today.

Once again an utterly irrelevant point to the topic at hand:thumbsup:

Really that reason is kind of bullshit. Obama had access to plenty of classified information as a US Senator. He just told everyone what they wanted to hear to get elected. All politicians do this to some extent, just some more than others and during this past presidential election Obama certainly dolled out more than a fair share of bullshit. It's to bad really, if he had stuck to his guns and pushed through half the bullshit he spilled out during the election he would have been a decent president. Instead, he started back pedaling the day after the election on most of his "promises".

Sorry but unless a senator or congressman is on the defense appropirations committee then they do not have delta level clearance. The president does. So as I stated once he became president, his clearance level increased and he now knows more than you:thumbsup:

How soon they forget Bush's unwillingness to turn over post-9/11 Presidential Daily Briefs to Congress....not even the Intel Committees, instead, misrepresenting the intel to build the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel (11/22/05)

So what your saying is that all the promises he made during the election was pure talking out his ass bullshit because he didn't really know the true national security situation?

Ok I'll buy that, sounds reasonable to me.

There are two points I wish to make.

1: I've stated above how clearance will play a role

2: Every single politician lies, cheats and steals in order to get elected. That's the only way to get elected, you have to pander to whatever crowd your talking to. Surely you can't be suprised by this fact.

That speaks well of our current society doesn't it, that we will accept these things and let it slide just to let "our party of choice" sit in the White House? We have become very shallow, thinking more of our "party of choice" rather than what's right for us and what's right for the US. It's a problem on both sides of the aisle, not just a Democratic or Republican problem. I don't know about you but I'm 45 years old, I don't have the time or the willpower to put up with this shit anymore. I find both parties extremely disgusting, putting more emphasis on their "parties" goals rather that what's right for the US and it's citizens. It's time for us voters to demand more and expect more rather than just accept the status quo, we have seen where this has taken us and the future don't hold much promise with our current state of affairs. It's time for us voters to move past the great party divide and to stop get getting played by both sides while they rob the chicken coop. Surely to god we can find some common ground somewhere and meet in the middle and move on rather than be emotionally played by the two great parties in this giant game of politics. The time is now to not only expect more but demand more.

All that sounds good, and every society in history has tried this, but it just isn't possible. Power corrupts. I don't have faith in humanity to overcome this anytime in the forseeable future

A perfect example of apathy and the willingness to accept the status quo. No wonder we are in the shape we are in.

So whats new?

Wilson campaigned with promises to keep us out of WW I. FDR did the same in the 1940 campaign, re: WW II. Nixon promised to get us out of Viet Nam in his first term. Bush promised no nation building.

Beyond that, I am curious as to the "back pedaling the day after the election on most of his promises". (your post #541)

Most?

Would that include his promise to:

* implement a comprehensive economic stimulus plan?

* introduce (and hopefully enact) comprehensive health care reform?

* introduce greater regulatory oversight of the financial services industry?

* overturn Bush's authorization of enhanced interrogation (torture) of detainees?

* reverse Bush's restrictive FOIA policy with a new directive to executive branch agencies to presume that FOIA requests should be honored and not blocked for political purposes?

* begin a comprehensive process of federal procurement reform to provide far greater oversight of Hailiburton-type sole source contracts that were abused to the tune of $hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars?

* enact the SCHP program, a credit card "bill of rights" program, a pay equity act to give women greater recourse to pay discrimination?

I could add more.

So where is "most" of that back pedaling that has you so outraged?

I would assume it is in the area of national security, where your claims that as a candidate (or senator), he had access to as much access intel as a sitting president. We know that was not the case.

I dont agree with some of his recent national security related decisions, but it is completely understandable that in this area, he now has access to far more intel than he had previously and, as a result, that could result in rethinking an earlier position.

Remember all those freedoms and powers Bush took that we were outraged about? I thought Obama was supposed to reverse them.

Maintaining fear is crucial for the Obama administration as well apparently. Tyrants just loves having eternal emergency powers.

Do you even know what the National Emergencies Act is all about?

Prior to its enactment, a president could declare a national emergency and extend presidential powers with no limitation on how long that could extend and with virtually no Congressional role.

The National Emergencies Act limits the time period to two-years, and more importantly, it codifies specific checks and balances by requiring reporting of all presidential actions to Congress and greater Congressional oversight of those actions.

Please explain how providing greater checks and balances than previously existed is tyrannical?

Never let the facts get in the way of your rush to cast Obama as a tyrant or fascist.

Of course I know what it is. You missed the point being that Obama isn't reversing the erosion of civil liberties under the Bush administration like he said he would. Patriot Act, wire tapping, continued state of emergency, still in 2 wars. All of the BS from the past administration is still staring us down and some of it Obama even made worse.

The congressional oversight hasn't done anything to curtail the government's ability to suspend habeas corpus (which is permitted under a state of emergency). By continuing this Obama is saying he needs to right to suspend habeas corpus. It's more BS terror mongering.

I dont want any president exerting extraordinary authority based on a perceived terrorist threat. But if he does, I damn well want Congress informed of every action and every directive coming out of the White House so that Congress can respond. That is what the act requires that was not previously codified.

When did Obama say he would overturn the Patriot Act? Or end FISA-authorized wiretaps (as opposed to circumventing FISA as Bush did). Or pull out of Afghanistan? Hell, he voted for the last Patriot Act re authorization and FISA amendments.

I voted for him DESPITE the fact that I disagree with his positions on these issues.

One could also reasonably make the case that the fear mongering is not coming from the WH, but rather from those screaming that Obama is a tyrannical fascist...or socialist...or communist...or the anti-Christ...or whatever the ignorant characterization of the week may be (its hard to keep up).

Sorry, I find this half-baked. Senators are regularly briefed on security matters - perhaps not at the level of the President, but surely enough to make a RESPONSIBLE decision in this regard.

Otherwise, all Bush would have to say is, "You haven't seen the shiat I've seen, Mr. Obama."

Senators as a whole do not receive classified intel briefings....only those on the Intel Committee (Obama was not a committee members). Other committees, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services receive less, and most Senators receive only highly redacted intel.

Candidates receive no briefings until after they secure the nomination....and then, still far less than the president, particularly regarding the most timely and sensitive intel in the Presidential Daily Briefs (PBDs).

The most bizarre fact is that past presidents have access to the PDBs yet the two major candidates, one of whom would be the next president, do not.

Bush pretty much told all of Congress, " "You haven't seen the shiat I've seen..." by refusing to share the PDBs or the full unredacted NIEs (claiming executive privilege for both - Karl Rove could see them, but not Congress) before asking them to vote on two separate AUMFs.

added: I dont know if Obama has been willing to share these intel docs on not..I suspect re: the PDBs, probably not.

How is it possible that Obama not have a clear policy position on Afghanistan? I understand changing policy, but it would seem to me that a leader is always assessing military strategy and making adjustment on how the military strategy fits with the overall policy, so why is Obama all of a sudden having high level meeting on this issue? Obama does not appear as if he has been taking the war in Afghanistan seriously. If that is true is Presidency so far is a failure. Nothing is more important than our President managing war.

So by this definition Bush's presidency was a failure yes?

Bush almost had a singular focus on the war. Agree or not, Bush knew what he wanted to accomplish. Bush selected people who were willing to carry out his plans, and fired those who were not. Bush convinced the American public to "stay the course" during his re-election. Bush forced Congress to do his bidding. Bush lead with clarity.

Regardless, Bush is no longer President. What is Obama doing in Afghanistan? What does he want to accomplish? How does he plan on getting it done?

Bush had no idea what he wanted to accomplish in Iraq since we went there under false pretenses. There were no wmd's so what was his mission, to establish democracy? To instill peace? He failed miserably at both.

As far as afghanistan I have no idea what his plan is. Or why he is even there in the first place, we have no business committing troops to another helpless cause. The muslim world is one we need to stay out of because it is impossible to win.

this says the obvious, but in a nice way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/op...n.html?_r=1&em

Will you folks ever get out of la-la land. Bush knew exactly why he requested authority to wage war in Iraq and he knew exactly why he invaded Iraq. I knew exactly why I supported Bush on the war. The only people confused about it are people like you.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Again, Krugman shows his inability to look at an issue with an open mind. George Will got it right:

Opinion: Editorials & Letters | "GEORGE WILL: Obama?s Olympic speech was narcissistic blather" | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

People on the right simply got a laugh out of the arrogance from Obama.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2713837]Will you folks ever get out of la-la land. Bush knew exactly why he requested authority to wage war in Iraq and he knew exactly why he invaded Iraq. I knew exactly why I supported Bush on the war. The only people confused about it are people like you.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

He knew exactly that his reasons for invading iraq were false. I'm not confused about it at all. You seem to be. Do you not accept the FACT that we went to war under false pretenses? Do you not accept the FACT that Iraq was in no way, directly or indirectly, responsible for 9/11? Do you not accept the FACT that Iraq posed no threat what so ever to the U.S?

Yes he knew why he went there, what he told the rest of the country was one lie after the other. So you are right, he knew what he was doing, lying to the American public and Congress to get what he wanted. And you support that?

There are many threads on this subject. I was not lied to, I know why I supported the war. I would never support a war based on a speech or someone's rhetoric. Your problem is really with Congress, not me. Then when Bush was re-elected, he got the votes he needed to continue the war from the American people. Why don't you face those facts?

I face those facts. The American people were lied to. They were told we had to attack Iraq or they would attack us first with WMD's. When I was told this by my president I believed it, and supported the war at that point. When I found out that He blatantly lied to me, He then lost my support.

It is funny to me how some people get "lied to" and others don't. For example I don't believe Obama and therefore I would never say I was "lied to" regarding what he does. If I think someone is dishonest and the issue is important enough (which war is) my job is to not rest until the truth is told. Liberals all over the world should have been doing something when they had a chance. And do something, like right now with Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea. The seeds are being sowed right now for what is going to happen in 4 or 8 years from now. The window for peaceful resolution of conflict is open now.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

And now you are going to believe, without question, Obama when he makes his prime time speech on Afghanistan. I got it. And you think I have a problem.:rolleyes:

People don't believe they were lied to, they were. Average americans(including you) don't have access to top secret intelligence reports, so we have no choice but to believe what our leaders tell us. We have no way to independantly research the reasons given. When it was later proved that bush lied to us, that's when people got pissed off.

And if you read my post #559 you will see that I don't believe in the war in afghanistan. I have no idea what obama's position is there because he hasn't made it clear

so far, Obama stays the same on Patriot Act provisions, not reducing the troops in Afghanistan, and Gitmo still open.

I'm not sniping at the man, this is just where we are today in comparison to his promises from last year election time.

I don't need top secret intelligence reports to know Ahmadinejad of Iran wants the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons and that he will do it or did it - and secondarily I know what he wants to blow off the face of the map. And therefore I don't need a President's speech to tell me what I want to do Ahmadinejad before he does it to me. The same was true with Sadaam. Like I said the window for peaceful resolution is open, I hope we can take advantage of it but it takes both sides. I already know what type of candidate I am going to support in 2012, just like I knew in 2000. The guy I help get elected in 2012 is not going to put up with bullshit from people like Ahmadinejad.


I hope history is not repeated. But it looks like I know what my view is and it looks like you are going to get "lied to" again.

We were lied to, like it or not that's the facts. Honestly I think the more important fact is we're still being lied to and it isn't limited to anyone one person or one party. They're pretty much all lying to us. I watched a story today about campaign contributions and voting on spending today. Senator after Senator (Dem and GOP alike) stood before the camera and, with a straight face, told people the fact they accepted 10's of thousands of dollars from (insert defense, health care, energy corp etc... here) and it in no way influenced their vote on spending millions, sometimes billions, of tax payer dollars on the very corporations giving them money. Bullshit. Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The whole systems messed up and it's been messed up long before anyone ever heard of Clinton, Bush or Obama. Until people wake up and realize these sleaze balls running things are being bought off to spend millions and billions of tax payer funds on weapons systems we don't need and funneling cash to health care corporations that spend as little of that cash on actual health patient health care we're all screwed.

How's Obama doing? He's screwed just like the rest of us and unless people start working together to solve these problems and stop falling for these fake, corporate induced/funded outrages we're all gonna remain screwed.

It must be nice not to need any sort of evidence to come to such a profound decision like going to war. All inspections and intelligence that have been released to the american public say that Iran in no way has now or in the forseeable future will have a nuclear weapon. And it must also be nice to be able to read someones mind and know what his exact intentions are. I understand now why you supported bush going to war, you both share the same supernatural powers of fortelling the future as well as mind reading:thumbsup:

That was a mistranslation, actually. He never said that. Khrushchev didn't say "we will bury" you either.

But hey, keep right on "knowing" what you "know".

Ok... so a Nobel Peace Prize for Obama. Does anybody else find that ludicrous? I sincerely hope the man publicly thanks George Bush for making it so easy to seem peace-loving by comparison.

Yeah you know the last guy was bad when all you have to do is show up to work to win a Nobel Prize.

no, he brokered peace, between Professor Gates and that police officer.

see he did something to deserve it.

I have beer all the time. And I'm also not George W Bush. Nobel Peace Prize for me!

I'm interested in how they're is going to respond to this news. Even the staunchest Obama fans I know think this is pretty ridiculous. It's not like the White House lobbied for it or did anything to bring it about--that's not how the Nobel Prize works. But for some reason it seems self-congratulatory.

I think it highlights a problem in tone that's been present since the inauguration. Obama the candidate came across as human and real and honest. Obama the president seems smug, somehow.

I work in Democratic politics and even I don't know anyone who thinks he deserves the peace prize, if that tells you anything.

"We" were not lied to, perhaps you should say "I". Personally, I don't accept being "lied to" - I won't accept what is told to me as truth unless I verify it. If I accept something as truth, I take personal responsibility for it.

---------- Post added at 02:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

I think you know that is not what I wrote, so what is your point of twisting what I wrote?

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

I was paraphrasing.

However, when someone makes a direct threat or a direct provocative action against our country, our allies, I tend to forever change my view of that person or that country. That's just me, I am not forgiving under those circumstances. The easiest way to keep people like me under control is to not provoke us, and if you do understand that people like me need help in preventing the situation from getting out of control. I am honestly saying what needs to be done. There are a lot of people like me in this country.

Im sorry, are you serious? The things that you say are getting more and more ridiculous.

So a lie is not based on whether a statement is knowingly false, but on whether someone accepts it, and if that someone accepts it, it is that person's fault?



As far as the nobel peace prize, that is BS, but Henry Kissinger also won that, and Kissinger was evil.

I am sorry for not explaining the difference between a "lie" and being "lied to". Being "lied to", suggests that you are a victim of the lie, that you bought into the lie, that you acted in a manner based on the lie. I don't accept being a victim of a lie, I don't get "lied to".

Ace you were told one thing and you believed it. It has now been proven to be completely untrue. How is that not being lied to?

Ace, you don't sound like a very nice person to know... you apparently don't trust anything anyone says, have no sympathy for anyone who does, and also apparently expect others to babysit "people like you" to prevent you from escalating situations because you can't handle your own reactionary impulses? Sounds like the guy in a bar who insists on taking every little insult "outside." There are consequences for actions, and being unable to control your reactions doesn't change that, and certainly doesn't make other people responsible for walking on eggshells around you.

yeah, well i don't quite get the peace prize thing either. i assume, however, that he got in in part for not being george w bush, and in part for the actions so far relative to palestine.

but even so, i don't quite get it.

There was clearly a dearth of good candidates.

Just stating my position, I don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace prize either.
My guess is with his popularity around the world, his rhetoric about a nuclear free world are moving to some, but I'd rather see it go to someone who's actually done something to deserve it.

Ace, you were lied to. Bush justified his war with lies to the American people, and the world. That includes you.
Maybe somewhere in your mind you have the delusion that because you and Bush were on the same camp, anything he said to get America in a war with Iraq was fine. So he only "lied" to people who didn't agree with him.
Sorry, but that's not how it works, you were lied to.

I did not support the war in Iraq based on intel reports suggesting they had WMD. I also understood the intel reports had a probability of being incorrect.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

I am what I am. I don't understand how people like you can hear a direct threat and pretend it away. You don't need to "babysit" me, I am just helping you understand people like me, do with it what you will. I will live in peace and freedom with everyone who wants the same. I am not a threat to anyone, but I am not a pacifist. Are you? If not what is the difference between you and I?

I am not pretending it away, but I will also not claim responsibility for another person's instability. There is a big difference between not being a pacifist and feeling the need to respond to every provocation to the point where you freely admit needing others to keep you from escalating the situation out of control. Differentiate yourself all you want, but that's exactly the kind of cowboy attitude, for lack of a better phrase, that got us where we are today.

Bloody frickin' joke. If he had actually accomplished some of the things he promised (leaving aside for now whether they are good or bad), I'd understand it. But a prize for, basically, having good intentions? By that standard lots and lots of people, including my mother in law, qualify. And my mother in law can use the prize money more than Obama can.

Did I hear that the deadline for nominations for the Peace Prize were 11 days after Obama took office? Is that correct? I thought they were talking about the nomination process, but I could be mistaken.

"I judged myself by my intentions, while the world was judging me by my actions"

it's nice to know that the world is now judging you by your intentions and no longer actions or achievements.

The pussification of America isn't just for America anymore, it's spread to the rest of the world.

well, the clearest achievement, the most obvious one, is not being george w. bush.
that in itself increased significantly the chances for peace in the world.

it's no wonder conservatives are particularly irked by this. the nobel peace prize was awarded to celebrate the fact you don't still have power.


but on another level, i still don't really get it.
i mean, loquitor's mother-in-law is also not george w. bush.
i assume.

my mother in law is decidedly not George W. Bush. She's much nicer. And a liberal democrat, too. Besides being the mother of my lovely wife.

And RB, I'm not really conservative. If you've ever seen my comments on social issues you'd know that.

But other than that, my reaction is ........ WTF? And understand, I happen to like the guy. I just don't see how his getting a Nobel Peace Prize makes even a tiny bit of sense.

Maybe the prize was awarded as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you didn't support the war because of the wmd's then why did you support it? Did you believe he was going to attack us? If so you were lied to.

As far as hearing direct threats against us, I have no idea what your talking about. There is no country that has made a threat against us in any way.

aside

loquitor: i wasn't referring to you in the top part of my last post. i can see why you'd like i was, though. i just thought the fact that your mother-in-law was also not george w bush in the same way as barack obama is to be funny.

I don't think Obama deserved it and the fact that they gave it to him means that it isn't worth all that much anyway. If I were him, I'd turn it down.

Well, you know how the cliche goes about mothers-in-law. Mine is an anti-cliche.

The Nobel prize has given rise to some hilarity, though. I have seen some websites that now are putting Obama's name forward for the Heisman Trophy.

If Obama would have turned it down we would have to listen Republicans complain about how smug Obama is because he turned down the peace prize....

Obama didn't ask to be nominated, he didn't ask for the award. It was given to him. There really isn't much of a story here, lets move on and worry about some real issues.

I wouldn't be concerned about Republicans complaining. That's about all they're good at these days. I'm just saying, fuck a Nobel Peace Prize, it's all pomp with little substance. It doesn't mean anything, and if I were Obama, I'd turn it down and tell them that if they still had the desire in a few years they could give it to me after I had done something more substantive in terms of world peace.

I find this whole thing hilarious in light of the facts that;

1: Mr. Obama is continuing the aggressive wars of his predecessors, has expanded the scope of one conflict into a neighboring (and allegedly allied) nation, and is now making threatening Likunik-sounding noises in the direction of Persia, and;

2: Mr. Obama continues to operate the illegal torture/internment facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The only motive I can think of for this is, in light of the above facts, is as above, "Oh thank God he's not George Bush." It certainly wasn't because of anything Mr. Obama has actually done or shows any signs of doing, and certainly wasn't because of the World Apology Tour, which my contacts in the UK and Czech Republic described as long-winded and insincere blather.