How did Bush get a 3rd Term??? - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 06-29-2009, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I wish I had a nickel for every time a liberal has shrieked "You shut up!" when his position was contradicted by facts. I could retire the $12 trillion Obama has loaned, borrowed, spent, or pledged to Hamas.

God, I've missed the clean debate of TFP, unsullied by personal attacks.

The more facts Aladdin Sane posts, the easier it is to hear crickets chirping over the dead silence where responses would be, if they were possible.

Putting aside the nonsensical comment about Hamas, in addition to ending the Bush policies of enhanced interrogation, black prisons and extraordinary rendition (to countries who torture) with one of his first EOs, the current DoJ is preparing guidelines to oveturn the Bush policy whereby detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. would now be able to claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations.

Another national security related fact for you, Marv - the Obama administration is killing the Bush administration program to expand the use of spy satellites by domestic law enforcement agenices.

Marv, which of these facts dont your understand?

filtherton · 06-29-2009, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

The more facts Aladdin Sane posts, the easier it is to hear crickets chirping over the dead silence where responses would be, if they were possible.

The funny thing is, if this thread were about a sitting republican president who had gone back on his campaign promises it would be full of faux-conservatives making excuses for their commander in chief and questioning the patriotism of the heathen liberals who dared question their fearless leader.

See: nearly every thread in politics during the Bush II years.

I mean shit: Some folks still can't admit that the "Mission Accomplished" photo op was a bad idea. Or that the government's response to Katrina was incompetent. Or that the war in Iraq was a horrible idea.

Over the previous 8 years I had gotten used to the mindless sycophantism, and in some respects it still exists with some Obama supporters. On the other hand, I think the silence in this thread is refreshing, because I know people who are disappointed that Obama doesn't seem to be coming through and I'm glad to see that the idea that we need to defend our president when we disagree with him is currently not in style.

I think you and aladdin just need hugs: you clearly have so much emotionally invested in proving Obama supporters wrong. To me it just seems like such a ridiculous stand to make. Seriously, are you trying to imply that Obama supporters would have been happier and/or less regretful if they had voted McCain? Because that's just dumb.

Aladdin Sane · 06-29-2009, 06:40 AM

Obama knows that our country needs to be protected from radical Islam by renditions, tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, Predator assassinations, and persistence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he also knows the public feels bad when some (like an earlier Obama himself) demagogue the issue, alleging a war against constitutional rights.

So he offers the noble lie of denouncing these Bush protocols that his antiwar base abhors — even as he maintains or expands them. He is certain that the average Joe cannot quite figure out what is going on, and would never suspect that a charismatic, postracial Guardian would ever deceive the people.

Derwood · 06-29-2009, 07:05 AM

I had to go back 2 pages to see exactly what Marv was quoting me about. Talk about old material....

dippin · 06-29-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Obama knows that our country needs to be protected from radical Islam by renditions, tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, Predator assassinations, and persistence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he also knows the public feels bad when some (like an earlier Obama himself) demagogue the issue, alleging a war against constitutional rights.

So he offers the noble lie of denouncing these Bush protocols that his antiwar base abhors — even as he maintains or expands them. He is certain that the average Joe cannot quite figure out what is going on, and would never suspect that a charismatic, postracial Guardian would ever deceive the people.

Dc_dux had an actual list of quite significant changes from the Bush years. Of course, I wish there more, but still, there are quite significant changes that have deep consequences for US policy.

roachboy · 06-29-2009, 08:11 AM

so if i understand such logic as there is behind this kinda pathetic exercise in conservative self-justification...

obama accepts the notion of a "war on terror" to the extent that he continued the bush-engagement in afghanistan, where "terror" meant al-qeada i thought but now apparently means the taliban. nearly all of the factoids adduced in this thread follow from that. naturally, they're presented without context and lined up as "evidence" which "demonstrates" the absurd claim that in the end the bush people were justified because obama has ended up doing some of the same thing, maintaining some of the same policy orientations. what's excluded, in addition to the contexts that would rationally be presupposed in a normal conversation, is also the magnitude of what obama has rejected about the bush people's worldview.

but that is to be expected.
more conservative therapy fobbed off as a set of claims about "realism"
funny stuff.

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so if i understand such logic as there is behind this kinda pathetic exercise in conservative self-justification...

No need to make things more complicated than they are.

A price needed to be paid for 9/11 and the decades of defiant behavior from irritating dictators. Peace and order occasionally needs a show of force, strength and conviction. In our new age uni-sex society where boys are taught to be sensitive there is cause to be concerned. Does the metro-sexual, sensitive to everyone's feelings, Obama, actually get it? Is he an alpha? Just when we think that he might be, he disappoints us.

Alpha's can not explain alpha behavior to those who are not one.

Willravel · 06-29-2009, 09:06 AM

9/11 wasn't an attack by absolutely everyone that ever scoffed in our direction. It wasn't an attack by Iraq, it wasn't an attack by the Hamas, and it wasn't an attack by the Taliban. It was an attack by a very small extremist group, mostly made up and funded by Saudis but that happened to be planned in Afghanistan. After being attacked, we figured out it was OBL, and realizing OBL was in Afghanistan started bombing. Then as asked if we could invade and remove the al Qaeda. Afghanistan, understandably, said no. We got mad.

And as someone that's been called a "metro-sexual" one or two times, I must say that being interested in proper grooming, style, and wearing your empathy on your sleve does not necessarily preclude a man from being able to lead. Case in point?

JFK

.

powerclown · 06-29-2009, 09:39 AM

Left thinking people scoffed when Bush claimed that liberating Iraq would spread the seeds of democracy throughout the region. Now look what his twisted policy has gone and done. How is George W. Obama ever going to claim credit for this grassroots Iranian revolution? Is it too late to republish his Cairo speech and add a few lines calling on the people of Iran to rise up?

dippin · 06-29-2009, 10:04 AM

I would love to hear the reasoning that links Bush's former policies, an invasion for false purposes, and what is happening in Iran right now in the manner you described.

Never mind that the idea that Iran is currently undergoing some sort of democratic awakening is nothing more than a fantasy that both underplays Iran's democratic past and overplays Mousani's reformism. Especially since he was prime minister from 81 to 89 and supported Khatami, the president until 2005. But Im not surprised that Bush's supporters would try to claim that the election of a hard liner like Ahmadinejad in 2005 had nothing to do with Iraq, but the struggle to bring back the reformists that were in place until 2005 has everything to do with it...

filtherton · 06-29-2009, 10:04 AM

Re Powerclown: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

And as someone that's been called a "metro-sexual" one or two times, I must say that being interested in proper grooming, style, and wearing your empathy on your sleve does not necessarily preclude a man from being able to lead. Case in point? JFK.

I mean no offense - but I am a person who after 14 years of marriage can brag that I have never run out of soap in 14 years.

I took the quiz at this link, they said I barely knew what the term metro-sexual means.

Personality Quiz: Are You a Metrosexual? A quiz for men.

I would not have called JFK metro-sexual. I would bet he only cared about appearance to the degree that he could win the hearts of some of the best looking women around.

Willravel · 06-29-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would not have called JFK metro-sexual. I would bet he only cared about appearance to the degree that he could win the hearts of some of the best looking women around.

I guess I'm not a metro-sexual either, then.

elise1 · 07-01-2009, 08:30 PM

there are a million answers to this question but the real answer is STUPIDITY

Aladdin Sane · 07-03-2009, 09:27 AM

The more Barack Obama learns about George W. Bush, the more he seems to like his predecessor. In yet another reversal from his campaign rhetoric and another broken promise to the Left, the Obama administration has adopted a Bush administration plan to use the NSA to secure private computer networks. The decision contradicts Obama’s earlier position that he would not allow the NSA to have access to private communications networks:

The Obama administration will proceed with a Bush-era plan to use National Security Agency assistance in screening government computer traffic on private-sector networks, with AT&T as the likely test site, according to three current and former government officials.

President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve “monitoring private-sector networks or Internet traffic,” and Department of Homeland Security officials say the new program will scrutinize only data going to or from government systems.

That was then. This is now:

But the program has provoked debate within DHS, the officials said, because of uncertainty about whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny, how much of a role NSA should play and whether the agency’s involvement in warrantless wiretapping during George W. Bush’s presidency would draw controversy. Each time a private citizen visited a “dot-gov” Web site or sent an e-mail to a civilian government employee, that action would be screened for potential harm to the network.

“We absolutely intend to use the technical resources, the substantial ones, that NSA has. But . . . they will be guided, led and in a sense directed by the people we have at the Department of Homeland Security,” the department’s secretary, Janet Napolitano, told reporters in a discussion about cybersecurity efforts.

Under a classified pilot program approved during the Bush administration, NSA data and hardware would be used to protect the networks of some civilian government agencies. Part of an initiative known as Einstein 3, the plan called for telecommunications companies to route the Internet traffic of civilian agencies through a monitoring box that would search for and block computer codes designed to penetrate or otherwise compromise networks.

washingtonpost.com

In a sense, this is no different than George Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program at the NSA — only Bush’s TSP required some reasonable cause for surveillance. TSP intended to prevent terrorist attacks by surveilling communication traffic from or to people outside the US, prompted by discoveries of suspected terrorist communication points. The NSA in this program checks communications entirely within the US, as well as coming from outside, in order to find potential attacks on our infrastructure. AT&T will route any communications to any government website through NSA for surveillance during the Einstein 3 test phase, for instance, regardless of probable cause, and the rest of the carriers would follow suit once Einstein 3 passes its initial tests.

This represents a major shift from the campaign, and even from last May, for Obama, who appears to like the power against which he railed for more than two years as a candidate. Of course, he exercises it with charm and finesse, which exempts him from charges of "fascism."

Aladdin Sane · 07-05-2009, 02:16 PM

After listening to the Democrats screech for the last two years about the rule of law, this Jake Tapper report should be surprising …. but it’s not. Apparently, Barack Obama finds treaty ratification a little too complicated, and so he figures he can just commit the US to nuclear disarmament and bypass Congressional oversight:

With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.

“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”

Samore said administration lawyers are exploring the “different options that are available. One option is that both sides could agree to continue the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval.”

The fact that the administration is preparing for such an extraordinary measure shows just how much pressure the two administrations are under to arrive at an agreement before the 18-year-old treaty expires.

US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty - Political Punch

Uh, pardon me, but how many seats in the Senate does Obama’s party hold? Isn’t it 60? If Obama is simply moving forward with a straightforward, supportable treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles in an effective verification system, why couldn’t he get a quick ratification? The GOP gave George H. W. Bush enough support in 1991 to pass the original START treaty, so it’s not as if ratification would be impossibly complicated.

And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Words. Just words.

dc_dux · 07-05-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

....
President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve “monitoring private-sector networks or Internet traffic,” and Department of Homeland Security officials say the new program will scrutinize only data going to or from government systems.

In a sense, this is no different than George Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program at the NSA — only Bush’s TSP required some reasonable cause for surveillance. TSP intended to prevent terrorist attacks by surveilling communication traffic from or to people outside the US, prompted by discoveries of suspected terrorist communication points. The NSA in this program checks communications entirely within the US, as well as coming from outside, in order to find potential attacks on our infrastructure. AT&T will route any communications to any government website through NSA for surveillance during the Einstein 3 test phase, for instance, regardless of probable cause, and the rest of the carriers would follow suit once Einstein 3 passes its initial tests.

This represents a major shift from the campaign, and even from last May, for Obama, who appears to like the power against which he railed for more than two years as a candidate. Of course, he exercises it with charm and finesse, which exempts him from charges of "fascism."

Given that much of Bush's TSP was illegal, by bypassing FISA, and was done w/o any notification to Congress and in complete secrecy.....IMO, there is no comparison.

As you failed to note, the current administration is also committed to provisions to balance personal privacy with the need to safeguard govt computer networks.....adn you are reading about it in advance (transparency?).

BTW, the Obama administration also recently announced plans to kill a Bush program that would use U.S. spy satellites for domestic (state/local) law enforcement.

More of the same? - a bit of a stretchhhhhhhhh

---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

After listening to the Democrats screech for the last two years about the rule of law, this Jake Tapper report should be surprising …. but it’s not. Apparently, Barack Obama finds treaty ratification a little too complicated, and so he figures he can just commit the US to nuclear disarmament and bypass Congressional oversight:

And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Words. Just words.

Given that Bush had no interest in extending START, but instead, replacing it with a far weaker, SORT......IMO, it is unreasonable to expect a full and complete renegotiation of START in eight-nine months,given the range of complex issues left by Bush, particularly missile defense in eastern Europe, relations with Georgia, etc.. along with discussions of the issues of cuts in delivery systems: long-range missiles, submarines and bombers, etc.

At least now, both sides are committed to some extension snd a continued draw down of nuclear weapons and inspection/verification.

As to extending START on a interim basis so as not to disrupt current inspections, etc, perhaps the president should go to Congress for that authorization.

On the other hand, he is not implementing a new treaty (which wold require ratification), but simply continuing the current status quo past the deadline date....and a president has the power to sign executive agreements between the US and other nations, which is done far more often than treaties.

IMO, another stretchhhhhhhhhh, dude.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

I'm also still waiting on your response to the other significant policy changes that I identified earlier:

- ending the Bush policies of enhanced interrogation
- closing and ending the use of black prisons
- limiting rendition (banning rendition to countries that torture their own citizens)
- new DoJ guidelines being prepared to oveturn the Bush policy whereby detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. would now be able to claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations.

More of the same?

Please explain how that is the case.

BTW, I dont agree with all of Obama's national security policies. I knew he was committed to titling a bit towards national security over personal privacy (I might tilt a tad the other way)....but the balance between the two is far closer than anytime during the last eight years.

Skitto · 07-05-2009, 11:13 PM

Hey, didn't anyone else notice that there wasn't really any good explanation for the drop in gas prices after Obama started his office? We're using Iraqi oil, folks, Bush passed the buck to Barack's guys, business as usual.

dc_dux · 07-06-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

After listening to the Democrats screech for the last two years about the rule of law, this Jake Tapper report should be surprising …. but it’s not. Apparently, Barack Obama finds treaty ratification a little too complicated, and so he figures he can just commit the US to nuclear disarmament and bypass Congressional oversight...

....Uh, pardon me, but how many seats in the Senate does Obama’s party hold? Isn’t it 60? If Obama is simply moving forward with a straightforward, supportable treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles in an effective verification system, why couldn’t he get a quick ratification?

Aladdin.....Obama and Medvedev signed several executive agreements today....one to allow the US to transport arms and military personnel across Russian land and airspace into Afghanistan.... another to resume military cooperation, suspended after Russia invaded neighboring Georgia last year.. and a third to create a framework for a replacement to START and reduce nuclear warheads and delivery systems to a level lower than Bush.

Are you suggesting these agreements require Senate approval or somehow represent a "unitary executive"?

How is proposing to slash nuclear stockpiles much more significantly than Bush's rigid lower limit "more of the same"?
...

Quote:

The GOP gave George H. W. Bush enough support in 1991 to pass the original START treaty, so it’s not as if ratification would be impossibly complicated.

And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2:

It took the Senate about 15 months to ratified START after GHW Bush signed it. Yes it is complicated and signing a new framework today hasnt bypassed anything.

Quote:

Words. Just words.

Perhaps the "words. just words" and the "screeching and howling" are coming from partisan right wing editorials that have no interest in presenting anything beyond superficial talking points, if instead, they can stir up their base and spread their less than forthright message.

They might even applaud your recent efforts here on their behalf.

aceventura3 · 07-07-2009, 07:14 AM

What happened to transparency?

Quote:

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

Quote:

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Obama blocks access to White House visitor list - White House- msnbc.com

I am sure there must be a few good reasons for Obama being in lock step with Bush on this issue. I wonder if it is just a simple matter of Bush not being as evil and secretive as he was made out to be - nope that can't be it. Must be that the "change" bit was b.s.

roachboy · 07-07-2009, 07:29 AM

wake me when this debacle of a thread goes beyond conservative therapy.

aceventura3 · 07-07-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

wake me when this debacle of a thread goes beyond conservative therapy.

O.k., but I doubt it will happen.

Poking at Obama never gets old. You call it a debacle, I call it fun. Kinda like Ramirez political cartoons.

Baraka_Guru · 07-07-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What happened to transparency?

I liked your use of parody in your post.

Here is some more of that article you quoted from:

Quote:

Asked Monday whether the White House plans to continue to oppose release of the records, White House spokesman LaBot said the policy is still under review. He also cited a list of "the unprecedented steps the administration has taken to promote openness and transparency." These include instructing all agencies to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in Freedom of Information Act decisions, and overturning the practice of allowing other executives, aside from the president, to assert executive privilege to block access to an administration's records.

Unpersuaded was the attorney for the watchdog group CREW, which was formed in 2003 during the Bush administration to increase open government.

"It's great that President Obama made this commitment to transparency," attorney Weismann said. "But now you need to make good on it."

aceventura3 · 07-07-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I liked your use of parody in your post.

Here is some more of that article you quoted from:

I am a simple person. What I included from the article is clear and easy to see and understand. Obama is not disclosing visitors to the WH. What you included is obscure, vague, and seems like public relations talk. I don't know what it means from a practical point of view, do you?

Again, the biggest problem I have with Obama is the seeming lack of clarity in his words as compared to his acts.

Baraka_Guru · 07-07-2009, 08:49 AM

It's under review. It's a current undertaking. Obama can't just wave a magick wand and make things transparent. Transparency in and of itself is not a virtue. Otherwise, these things wouldn't be an issue, would it? Otherwise, why not just televise everything that goes in the in the White House and broadcast it on the Internet 24/7?

roachboy · 07-07-2009, 09:16 AM

ace...it's funny that you persist in imagining some unified front of support for obama that is bothered by what the conservative factoid machine generates as paper-thin "critiques." they amount to almost nothing but they continue to be produced and dutifully repeated. if you read them from even a slightly dispassionate position---which i try to do, believe it or not, until i start laughing---it is obvious that this is not about obama at all, really. it is about maintaining a sense of coherence for the conservative brand by maintaining a sense of coherence amongst its demographic. that's all that's happening, ace. so there's little possibility of waking back up after this because there's no there there apart from conservative self-help.

the underlying assumption behind all of this nonsense, when you strip away the ludicrous rhetoric of "hypocrisy" and other such, is basically that george w bush represented a kind of pure recognition of raison d'etat (look it up)--which is hilarious---so that any accomodation that obama finds himself making as he moves (and he still is) into occupying power on an everyday scale, so every rapprochement with the notion of raison d'etat, amounts to a vindication of george w bush.

once upon a time the neocons could be seen as the mayberry machiavellians. now, in the pathetic afterglow of 8 years of the bush administration, the collective memorybanks of the conservative factoid-generating machine has been purged of any trace of contact with machiavelli.

it's funny stuff.

Willravel · 07-07-2009, 09:30 AM

My mom bakes a mean raison d'etat. The trick is using brown sugar.

roachboy · 07-07-2009, 09:49 AM

nice. save me a piece: i'll be over in about a month.

Willravel · 07-07-2009, 09:51 AM

There are times when the need to ensure the right flavor means ignoring the recipe.

aceventura3 · 07-07-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace...it's funny that you persist in imagining some unified front of support for obama that is bothered by what the conservative factoid machine generates as paper-thin "critiques."

I agree, and add most critiques are not worth the paper they are written on. When I spent time here defending Bush, it would always come to the bottom line of - what others thought did not matter, I knew why I supported Bush and most of his policies. I expect it is the same for those who support Obama, except for the fact that they don't really support his policies. Ouch!

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

My mom bakes a mean raison d'etat.

Personally, I don't eat what I can not pronounce. Is that French or something? Does it taste anything like good old American apple pie?

Aladdin Sane · 07-07-2009, 11:30 AM

Nevermind.

Willravel · 07-07-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Personally, I don't eat what I can not pronounce. Is that French or something? Does it taste anything like good old American apple pie?

It depends on who's making it. It's usually a bit bitter, and while it's suggested with seemingly selfless intentions, it's usually just the threat of baking it more than it is actually buying the ingredients and warming up the oven. In the case of Bush, though, the thing turned out bloated, uneven, and burned to a crisp, which means that Obama is left washing the dishes, cleaning out the burnt smell from the oven and airing out the kitchen for a while. Don't confuse the burning smell for what Obama's got planned, though.

This joke-turned-illustration is getting way out of control.

aceventura3 · 07-07-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It depends on who's making it. It's usually a bit bitter, and while it's suggested with seemingly selfless intentions, it's usually just the threat of baking it more than it is actually buying the ingredients and warming up the oven. In the case of Bush, though, the thing turned out bloated, uneven, and burned to a crisp, which means that Obama is left washing the dishes, cleaning out the burnt smell from the oven and airing out the kitchen for a while. Don't confuse the burning smell for what Obama's got planned, though.

This joke-turned-illustration is getting way out of control.

Just seems to me that Obama is embarrassed by what is in the national interest of the U.S. I want people, even if I disagree, to be strong advocates for at least what they believe to be in our national interest. Obama has failed to present a compelling case for how his acquiescence on a world stage to big principle issues like Honduras, Iran (elections), N. Korea (missile testing), apology tour, etc., moves our national agenda.

I am not clear on your position on this issue. I understand why some people find issue with raison d'etat. I don't think the human race is ready to be - one.

dc_dux · 07-07-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

...
This joke-turned-illustration is getting way out of control.

Looking forward to getting back to more of the "more of the same, Bush third term gotchas".....but come on, right -minded guys, make them a little more challenging to refute.

For the most part, they have been baseless drivel that plays well in the wingnut circuit but cant really stand the test of scrutiny.

Willravel · 07-07-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not clear on your position on this issue.

My position is Obama is already miles and miles better than Bush (or a hypothetical McCain administration), but he's making mistakes I'm not comfortable with. Or are you just referring to the raison d'etat thing? That was a joke that turned only about half serious.

aceventura3 · 07-07-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Looking forward to getting back to more of the "more of the same, Bush third term gotchas".....but come on, right -minded guys, make them a little more challenging to refute.

For the most part, they have been baseless drivel that plays well in the wingnut circuit but cant really stand the test of scrutiny.

I missed the refutes. Think I should re-read this thread from the beginning, or can we agree there has not been any now?

dc_dux · 07-07-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I missed the refutes. Think I should re-read this thread from the beginning, or can we agree there has not been any now?

ace....start with #177 and #179 and work backwards

Perhaps you can answer how:

- ending the Bush policies of enhanced interrogation
- closing and ending the use of black prisons
- limiting rendition (banning rendition to countries that torture their own citizens)
- new DoJ guidelines being prepared to oveturn the Bush policy whereby detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. would now be able to claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations.

is "more of the same"

Or how the Obama' administration's consultation with privacy groups in meetings at the WH on protecting federal cyberspace is in any way comparable to Bush's TSP (as suggested by alladin) which was done in total darkness, circumvented the existing law (FISA), was blocked from Congressional oversight.....

aceventura3 · 07-07-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

My position is Obama is already miles and miles better than Bush (or a hypothetical McCain administration), but he's making mistakes I'm not comfortable with.

The recession early in the Bush term was short and his tax plan helped. The Obama administration is already saying what they underestimated the recession and their plans probably won't work and we may need another bailout.

The war in Iraq eventually lead to a strategy that worked and Bush always had clear principled goals and objectives. The Obama, Afghanistan strategy lacks clarity and is destine to fail, everyone knows it and no one has the courage to speak up.

Your "miles and miles better" comment does not seem to be based in reality. At some point the - I inherited... - line has to get old, don't you agree?

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....start with #177 and #179 and work backwards

Just as an example: The TSA program was modified before Bush left office, what has changed since January? Perhaps, I am ignorant on what Obama has done, this is an educational opportunity for me.

dc_dux · 07-07-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just as an example: The TSA program was modified before Bush left office, what has changed since January? Perhaps, I am ignorant on what Obama has done, this is an educational opportunity for me.

You are dodging the specific examples I provided. Alladin did the same.

Try to focus on the differences in the treatment of detainees I noted and Alladin's attempt to compare Obama's proposed federal cyberspace security program that has been discussed openly to the totally secretive TSP.

How do they represent more of the same or a Bush 3rd term?

Willravel · 07-07-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The recession early in the Bush term was short and his tax plan helped. The Obama administration is already saying what they underestimated the recession and their plans probably won't work and we may need another bailout.

First off, you're comparing apples to planets. Second, the tax plans that the Bush advisers set up provided at best temporary relief as a trade off for an even worse crash once the bubbles actually started bursting. I'm not saying President Obama is making all the right decisions, but at least he's trying to address them instead of passing it along to the next administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The war in Iraq eventually lead to a strategy that worked and Bush always had clear principled goals and objectives.

You couldn't be more wrong. We invaded to located WMDs. Since there are no WMDs, no strategy can "work". We lost as soon as we invaded and no amount of surges can fix that. At best, we leave the country in shambles.
[quote=aceventura3;2665077]The Obama, Afghanistan strategy lacks clarity and is destine to fail, everyone knows it and no one has the courage to speak up.[QUOTE]
I speak up. A lot of people here on TFP are vocally against the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, because of the ignorant strategies of the right, all politicians must pretend they're warmongers lest they be painted as weak. It's disgusting. The weakest people in American history are the people that commit to unnecessary wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Your "miles and miles better" comment does not seem to be based in reality. At some point the - I inherited... - line has to get old, don't you agree?

Yes, it might some day. For right now, only 6 months after taking office during 2 wars, and economic free fall and unbelievable human rights violations, things are at least headed away from the wrong direction.

I think it would serve you well to not get your information from right wing news outlets anymore. I've not read Kos, Huffington, or the New Republic for some time and I've found that I am more easily able to see through BS on my side of the spectrum. Considering that you often echo Republican and conservative talking points on cue with their media release tells me that you frequent place like Drudge, Fox News, National Review, WorldNetDaily, etc. Having the same ideologies as an organization does not mean they should be given a free pass.

06-29-2009, 06:40 AM	#163 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Obama knows that our country needs to be protected from radical Islam by renditions, tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, Predator assassinations, and persistence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he also knows the public feels bad when some (like an earlier Obama himself) demagogue the issue, alleging a war against constitutional rights. So he offers the noble lie of denouncing these Bush protocols that his antiwar base abhors — even as he maintains or expands them. He is certain that the average Joe cannot quite figure out what is going on, and would never suspect that a charismatic, postracial Guardian would ever deceive the people. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

06-29-2009, 08:11 AM	#166 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so if i understand such logic as there is behind this kinda pathetic exercise in conservative self-justification... obama accepts the notion of a "war on terror" to the extent that he continued the bush-engagement in afghanistan, where "terror" meant al-qeada i thought but now apparently means the taliban. nearly all of the factoids adduced in this thread follow from that. naturally, they're presented without context and lined up as "evidence" which "demonstrates" the absurd claim that in the end the bush people were justified because obama has ended up doing some of the same thing, maintaining some of the same policy orientations. what's excluded, in addition to the contexts that would rationally be presupposed in a normal conversation, is also the magnitude of what obama has rejected about the bush people's worldview. but that is to be expected. more conservative therapy fobbed off as a set of claims about "realism" funny stuff. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-29-2009, 09:06 AM	#168 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	9/11 wasn't an attack by absolutely everyone that ever scoffed in our direction. It wasn't an attack by Iraq, it wasn't an attack by the Hamas, and it wasn't an attack by the Taliban. It was an attack by a very small extremist group, mostly made up and funded by Saudis but that happened to be planned in Afghanistan. After being attacked, we figured out it was OBL, and realizing OBL was in Afghanistan started bombing. Then as asked if we could invade and remove the al Qaeda. Afghanistan, understandably, said no. We got mad. And as someone that's been called a "metro-sexual" one or two times, I must say that being interested in proper grooming, style, and wearing your empathy on your sleve does not necessarily preclude a man from being able to lead. Case in point? JFK JFK .

07-03-2009, 09:27 AM	#175 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Obama Embraces Yet Another Bushitler Security Program (BUT WITH BROADER POWERS) The more Barack Obama learns about George W. Bush, the more he seems to like his predecessor. In yet another reversal from his campaign rhetoric and another broken promise to the Left, the Obama administration has adopted a Bush administration plan to use the NSA to secure private computer networks. The decision contradicts Obama’s earlier position that he would not allow the NSA to have access to private communications networks: The Obama administration will proceed with a Bush-era plan to use National Security Agency assistance in screening government computer traffic on private-sector networks, with AT&T as the likely test site, according to three current and former government officials. President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve “monitoring private-sector networks or Internet traffic,” and Department of Homeland Security officials say the new program will scrutinize only data going to or from government systems. That was then. This is now: But the program has provoked debate within DHS, the officials said, because of uncertainty about whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny, how much of a role NSA should play and whether the agency’s involvement in warrantless wiretapping during George W. Bush’s presidency would draw controversy. Each time a private citizen visited a “dot-gov” Web site or sent an e-mail to a civilian government employee, that action would be screened for potential harm to the network. “We absolutely intend to use the technical resources, the substantial ones, that NSA has. But . . . they will be guided, led and in a sense directed by the people we have at the Department of Homeland Security,” the department’s secretary, Janet Napolitano, told reporters in a discussion about cybersecurity efforts. Under a classified pilot program approved during the Bush administration, NSA data and hardware would be used to protect the networks of some civilian government agencies. Part of an initiative known as Einstein 3, the plan called for telecommunications companies to route the Internet traffic of civilian agencies through a monitoring box that would search for and block computer codes designed to penetrate or otherwise compromise networks. washingtonpost.com In a sense, this is no different than George Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program at the NSA — only Bush’s TSP required some reasonable cause for surveillance. TSP intended to prevent terrorist attacks by surveilling communication traffic from or to people outside the US, prompted by discoveries of suspected terrorist communication points. The NSA in this program checks communications entirely within the US, as well as coming from outside, in order to find potential attacks on our infrastructure. AT&T will route any communications to any government website through NSA for surveillance during the Einstein 3 test phase, for instance, regardless of probable cause, and the rest of the carriers would follow suit once Einstein 3 passes its initial tests. This represents a major shift from the campaign, and even from last May, for Obama, who appears to like the power against which he railed for more than two years as a candidate. Of course, he exercises it with charm and finesse, which exempts him from charges of "fascism." __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

07-05-2009, 02:16 PM	#176 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	After listening to the Democrats screech for the last two years about the rule of law, this Jake Tapper report should be surprising …. but it’s not. Apparently, Barack Obama finds treaty ratification a little too complicated, and so he figures he can just commit the US to nuclear disarmament and bypass Congressional oversight: With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty. “The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.” Samore said administration lawyers are exploring the “different options that are available. One option is that both sides could agree to continue the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval.” The fact that the administration is preparing for such an extraordinary measure shows just how much pressure the two administrations are under to arrive at an agreement before the 18-year-old treaty expires. US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty - Political Punch Uh, pardon me, but how many seats in the Senate does Obama’s party hold? Isn’t it 60? If Obama is simply moving forward with a straightforward, supportable treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles in an effective verification system, why couldn’t he get a quick ratification? The GOP gave George H. W. Bush enough support in 1991 to pass the original START treaty, so it’s not as if ratification would be impossibly complicated. And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; Words. Just words. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

06-29-2009, 07:05 AM	#164 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I had to go back 2 pages to see exactly what Marv was quoting me about. Talk about old material....

06-29-2009, 09:39 AM	#169 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Left thinking people scoffed when Bush claimed that liberating Iraq would spread the seeds of democracy throughout the region. Now look what his twisted policy has gone and done. How is George W. Obama ever going to claim credit for this grassroots Iranian revolution? Is it too late to republish his Cairo speech and add a few lines calling on the people of Iran to rise up?

06-29-2009, 10:04 AM	#170 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I would love to hear the reasoning that links Bush's former policies, an invasion for false purposes, and what is happening in Iran right now in the manner you described. Never mind that the idea that Iran is currently undergoing some sort of democratic awakening is nothing more than a fantasy that both underplays Iran's democratic past and overplays Mousani's reformism. Especially since he was prime minister from 81 to 89 and supported Khatami, the president until 2005. But Im not surprised that Bush's supporters would try to claim that the election of a hard liner like Ahmadinejad in 2005 had nothing to do with Iraq, but the struggle to bring back the reformists that were in place until 2005 has everything to do with it...

06-29-2009, 10:04 AM	#171 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Re Powerclown: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

07-01-2009, 08:30 PM	#174 (permalink)
elise1 Upright	there are a million answers to this question but the real answer is STUPIDITY

07-05-2009, 11:13 PM	#178 (permalink)
Skitto Crazy Location: Westernmost Continental U.S.	Hey, didn't anyone else notice that there wasn't really any good explanation for the drop in gas prices after Obama started his office? We're using Iraqi oil, folks, Bush passed the buck to Barack's guys, business as usual. __________________ Yeah, well, you're just that awesome, I guess. It's not like I guessed so anyways.

07-07-2009, 07:29 AM	#181 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	wake me when this debacle of a thread goes beyond conservative therapy. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2009, 08:49 AM	#185 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It's under review. It's a current undertaking. Obama can't just wave a magick wand and make things transparent. Transparency in and of itself is not a virtue. Otherwise, these things wouldn't be an issue, would it? Otherwise, why not just televise everything that goes in the in the White House and broadcast it on the Internet 24/7? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 07-07-2009 at 08:57 AM..

07-07-2009, 09:16 AM	#186 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace...it's funny that you persist in imagining some unified front of support for obama that is bothered by what the conservative factoid machine generates as paper-thin "critiques." they amount to almost nothing but they continue to be produced and dutifully repeated. if you read them from even a slightly dispassionate position---which i try to do, believe it or not, until i start laughing---it is obvious that this is not about obama at all, really. it is about maintaining a sense of coherence for the conservative brand by maintaining a sense of coherence amongst its demographic. that's all that's happening, ace. so there's little possibility of waking back up after this because there's no there there apart from conservative self-help. the underlying assumption behind all of this nonsense, when you strip away the ludicrous rhetoric of "hypocrisy" and other such, is basically that george w bush represented a kind of pure recognition of raison d'etat (look it up)--which is hilarious---so that any accomodation that obama finds himself making as he moves (and he still is) into occupying power on an everyday scale, so every rapprochement with the notion of raison d'etat, amounts to a vindication of george w bush. once upon a time the neocons could be seen as the mayberry machiavellians. now, in the pathetic afterglow of 8 years of the bush administration, the collective memorybanks of the conservative factoid-generating machine has been purged of any trace of contact with machiavelli. it's funny stuff. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2009, 09:30 AM	#187 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My mom bakes a mean raison d'etat. The trick is using brown sugar.

07-07-2009, 09:49 AM	#188 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice. save me a piece: i'll be over in about a month. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2009, 09:51 AM	#189 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There are times when the need to ensure the right flavor means ignoring the recipe.

07-07-2009, 11:30 AM	#191 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Nevermind. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Last edited by Aladdin Sane; 07-07-2009 at 11:45 AM..