Obama's Performance (so far) - Page 14 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

filtherton · 08-11-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama announced Duncan as his Education Secretary. Duncan is currently the head of Chicago schools, among the worst schools in the nation. Duncan's performance in Chicago has been poor based on actually improving academic performance relative to other professionals who may be better qualified, yet he was selected - why? Could it be that Duncan and Obama are pals? Could it be they play ball together? Could it be the both graduated from Harvard? Is this the fresh change you refer to? Or, is it just cronyism? Or, just business as usual in the world of Chicago style politics?

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.

aceventura3 · 08-12-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I understood your point. I also understood that you had no real objective basis for believing that Duncan was unqualified

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.

filtherton · 08-12-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

aceventura3 · 08-12-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

filtherton · 08-12-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

ninoy · 08-27-2009, 03:41 AM

so far so good...

aceventura3 · 09-07-2009, 11:48 AM

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.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The resignation of Obama administration figure Van Jones, following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans, did not come at the request of the president, the White House senior adviser said Sunday.

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:

Quote:

The Marines from Twentynine Palms, assigned to train the Afghan National Police, have had their seven-month deployment extended by 30 days.

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:

Quote:

Sept. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Let’s take a walk on the dark side.

Who better to go into the shadows with, hand in hand, than former Vice President Dick Cheney. He knows that the way to keep America safe is through everything the prior administration engaged in, from waterboarding to the use of power equipment.

However much we cringe at the reality of it, torture works, says the vice president. Proof? He has it. We haven’t had another 9/11.

And who is that masked man walking a few steps behind and slightly to the left? Why, that’s President Barack Obama. He campaigned against torture and for restoring America’s good name in the world by abiding by the Geneva Conventions. But now in office, he’s decided to continue rendition and has come out -- at least publicly -- against any criminal investigation of Central Intelligence Agency interrogations of terror suspects.

What gives? Obama’s current position lets him have it both ways: Attorney General Eric Holder is proceeding with an investigation of enhanced interrogations under the Bush-Cheney administration, with or without Obama’s blessing. But Obama doesn’t give up extracting crucial information by using enhanced interrogation techniques, though only in other countries.

There is only one reason to ship detainees to another country, and it’s not prison overcrowding. We have room. It’s that other countries -- say Syria -- will do what it takes to crack an operative without U.S. fingerprints on the electrodes strapped to vulnerable body parts.

Obama’s Reading

The president got to read the unredacted version of the recently released 2004 report from the CIA’s inspector general. With that, Obama may have an answer to the question that confounds the rest of is. Does torture work? Does it work some of the time, all the time, or never? Only the most morally pure person could say the answer doesn’t matter.

Even the redacted version suggested that the umpteenth waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the Sept. 11 attacks, yielded crucial information that prevented another attack. Can harm to one life be morally wrong if it saves many lives? And what if those lives, as the TV program “24” often posits, are the lives of your family?

Senator John McCain, who knows firsthand about the subject, says torture doesn’t work, and anyway torture is wrong. Cheney says it always works, so it has to be right.

More than half the public favors torture on the chance that it does work sometimes. In a June poll by the Associated Press, 52 percent of Americans said torture was sometimes or often justified to obtain information from terror suspects. An April CNN poll found that even though 60 percent of Americans thought harsh techniques including waterboarding constituted torture, 50 percent approved of them.

Calming the Base

It’s curious that Obama allowed Holder -- if that’s what he did -- to pursue an investigation the president insisted would be “looking backward” when what he wanted to do was go forward. But there’s an advantage to being against an investigation of the CIA before he was for it: he mollifies his base, which expects Obama to pull the country back from the abyss of the Cheney years and punish more than the “few bad apples” down the chain of command.

There is always a chance Holder went rogue, though. “My Cabinet can do what they feel is right” is a formulation not much heard in any recent White House. Power is so concentrated in the West Wing that any kid with an office can tell a Cabinet member what to do.

Keep Guessing

To keep everyone guessing, an unnamed high administration official gave an off-air interview to CNN recently, saying that Holder, not the president, is the country’s “chief law enforcement officer,” so he can do what he wants in such matters.

More likely an e-mail may one day come to light going something like:

Dear Eric,

This is a one-time-only pass to have your own way. Do not think it represents a change in policy.

Your friend,

Rahm

Cheney may be right that there is a cost to opening an investigation. The specter of a special prosecutor poring over videotaped interrogation sessions a few months hence might chill a CIA employee. No interrogator of high-value detainees wants to open himself up to being interrogated later as a criminal himself.

Idle Threat

Then there are the terrorists. For those operatives with access to the Internet, which seems to be most of them, how likely are they to take threats seriously knowing that waterboarding is out of the question? That power drill looks menacing but it isn’t plugged in. Severe sleep deprivation is unlikely.

With rendition, Obama can afford to appease his critics on the left. Our CIA won’t waterboard, but someone else’s will.

Until an unredacted report is made public, I still believe situations where the bomb is ticking don’t occur other than on a back lot at Warner studios, that torture is ineffective against people who are willing to die for their cause and be united with 72 vestal virgins in heaven, and that innocents who know nothing will be mistreated as well.

And I don’t trust the former vice president’s protestations that he was right about everything, when he was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, the number of troops needed in Iraq, and so much else.

But on the question of torture, Obama is closer to Cheney than to those who elected him. He’s proving the old saw that when you get to be president, you learn things no one else knows that justify things no one thought you would do, even yourself.

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

filtherton · 09-07-2009, 02:41 PM

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

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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?

rahl · 09-08-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

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.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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.

filtherton · 09-08-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 02:23 PM

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.

rahl · 09-08-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 02:50 PM

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.

Quote:

On May 20, 2009, U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced health care reform legislation that delivers on the shared principles of promoting universal access to quality, affordable health care, and does so without adding billions of dollars in new debt or taxes.

Patients' Choice Act

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

YouTube - Paul Ryan on the Patients' Choice Act

rahl · 09-08-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

YouTube - Paul Ryan on the Patients' Choice Act

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.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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:

YouTube - Anthony Gatto: The Best Juggler in the World

Opps, another ball in the air, darn.

filtherton · 09-08-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Point out the flaw.

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.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

rahl · 09-08-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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:

YouTube - Anthony Gatto: The Best Juggler in the World

Opps, another ball in the air, darn.

Once again an utterly irrelevant point to the topic at hand

scout · 09-09-2009, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

. The reason for his decision is stated in my above post.

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".

rahl · 09-09-2009, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

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

dc_dux · 09-09-2009, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Really that reason is kind of bullshit. Obama had access to plenty of classified information as a US Senator....

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)

scout · 09-09-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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

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.

rahl · 09-09-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

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.

scout · 09-10-2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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.

rahl · 09-10-2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

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

scout · 09-11-2009, 02:04 AM

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

dc_dux · 09-11-2009, 05:40 AM

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.

samcol · 09-12-2009, 04:36 AM

Quote:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 10, 2009

NOTICE
- - - - - - -
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT

TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2009. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency the former President declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 10, 2009.

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.

dc_dux · 09-12-2009, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

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.

samcol · 09-12-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

dc_dux · 09-12-2009, 07:23 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

...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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

It's more BS terror mongering.

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).

ScottKuma · 09-14-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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.

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."

dc_dux · 09-14-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

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.

aceventura3 · 10-06-2009, 07:45 AM

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.

rahl · 10-06-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

aceventura3 · 10-06-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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?

rahl · 10-06-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

roachboy · 10-06-2009, 12:57 PM

this says the obvious, but in a nice way:

Quote:

The Politics of Spite
By PAUL KRUGMAN

There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand

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

09-08-2009, 02:23 PM	#533 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

09-11-2009, 02:04 AM	#548 (permalink)
scout Psycho	A perfect example of apathy and the willingness to accept the status quo. No wonder we are in the shape we are in. __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

09-11-2009, 05:40 AM	#549 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-11-2009 at 08:55 AM..

10-06-2009, 07:45 AM	#556 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

08-27-2009, 03:41 AM	#526 (permalink)
ninoy Upright	so far so good...

09-07-2009, 02:41 PM	#528 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	So wait, you don't like Obama?!?!?!??!