ChezGiven 0 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Related to that: the notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven For that moronic statement to tail a pure polemical rant is beyond irony. What does he mean by empirical here, that there are observable examples? Observations of what? His own party voting against him is one empirical observation relevant to this view and neither you nor Greenwald have brought a single one. Those last examples all occur after Congress voted against him 4 months after his inauguration. What the article boils down to is that technically, with a lot of will and a few risk, they could try KSA on US soil. Good reason to vote for the tea party that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 What has Obama done for the left? Still in Iraq Still in Afghanistan Now in Libya Regarding these three in reference to your question, are they negatives? Are the left all fucking quakers now or some shit? He's helping to bring down Qaddafi's regime, thus aiding the left in Libya. The Taliban and Al Quaeda aren't known for their progressive left-wing ideology either. If the US just flat pulled out of all three conflicts, it would be a huge blow for the left in those countries that they would not recover from. Pulling out would be a victory for those with conservative fiscal policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 What has Obama done for the left? Still in Iraq Still in Afghanistan Now in Libya Regarding these three in reference to your question, are they negatives? Are the left all fucking quakers now or some shit? He's helping to bring down Qaddafi's regime, thus aiding the left in Libya. The Taliban and Al Quaeda aren't known for their progressive left-wing ideology either. If the US just flat pulled out of all three conflicts, it would be a huge blow for the left in those countries that they would not recover from. Pulling out would be a victory for those with conservative fiscal policies. Indeed. He even promised to stay in Afghanistan during his campaign. But you can't say staying is something that should please the liberals that voted for him. They're all individual examples as I wonder which matters he's impressed progressives on. Not that he had to stay out of all 3. Coming out of Iraq in actuality rather than pretending to might have been a start. I forgot to include that gays still can't marry. Of course it's a victory for the left that they're allowed to die in wars for their country, so we shouldn't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 The gay train will pull in at the station soon enough though, Prop 8 started the ball rolling, it'll come. I'd love Obama to come out explicitly in support of gays, "hey, one time, I even sucked this guy's cock in Detroit! Tastes like chicken!" but he's cautious to a fault. This has been one of the most difficult tenures of all time though, considering the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I agree with the view that Obama has been too keen on being a centerist, and has really let down the 'liberal' people who voted for him in the hope he'd be very different from either Bush. However, the thought of some bible basher like Huckabee, a manipulative crook in the Dick Cheney mould or a moron like Palin would fill me with dread. Obama has been a let down, but they'd be worse. Ralph Nader would be great, but the yanks are so tribal with their very similar parties, that no-one has a hope in hell of breaking the 2 party system. China's rise is seemingly inevitable, but it has been accelerated by Bush Jnr. and the mess he and the banks left. And a world which is owned by the Chinese 'Communist' Party is bloody scary. They only care about two things-power and money. Obama has just kept up the USA's pace of decline by being too much like Bush Jnr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Perhaps the people who view him as a major let down got caught up in the 'Hope!' hype and the cult of Obama that grew during the campaign for the Dem's nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Perhaps the people who view him as a major let down got caught up in the 'Hope!' hype and the cult of Obama that grew during the campaign for the Dem's nomination. I never expected anything of him and said as much before he wad elected I just cant fathom the pass he's given by people for doing exactly what bush would have been slated for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Perhaps the people who view him as a major let down got caught up in the 'Hope!' hype and the cult of Obama that grew during the campaign for the Dem's nomination. I never expected anything of him and said as much before he wad elected I just cant fathom the pass he's given by people for doing exactly what bush would have been slated for. You get a free pass if you're black. Look at Huey Newton, OJ, et al. I still find Obama to be likable as a person because he's black, articulate and a good writer. That doesn't equate to being a good leader. There are things I admire about Bush as a person (tremendously agile, see the shoe dodging), but the negatives outweigh them dramatically. He wasn't quite as thick as was widely promulgated; some of the abuse he got on that front should have been saved for Palin. Terrible president obviously, even republicans admit that (thoughtful ones). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) America is banckrupt and the IMF are suggeting raising taxes and cutting spending by 23%. :icon_lol Gross debt running at 97% of gdp = officially banckrupt. Edited April 6, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 you could always send them your "worthless" savings oh Elfmeister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Related to that: the notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven For that moronic statement to tail a pure polemical rant is beyond irony. What does he mean by empirical here, that there are observable examples? Observations of what? His own party voting against him is one empirical observation relevant to this view and neither you nor Greenwald have brought a single one. Those last examples all occur after Congress voted against him 4 months after his inauguration. What the article boils down to is that technically, with a lot of will and a few risk, they could try KSA on US soil. Good reason to vote for the tea party that. What's the reason to vote for Obama? Still never got that link to explain what that vote was that changed Obama from cheerleader for rule of law (everyone gets their day in court), to mimicking Bush exactly to give trials to some, military commissions to others and no oversight whatsoever for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 The image you conjure with your references to Obama 'mimicking Bush' are very amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 Bought and paid for like Bush. It's insanity to think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Related to that: the notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven For that moronic statement to tail a pure polemical rant is beyond irony. What does he mean by empirical here, that there are observable examples? Observations of what? His own party voting against him is one empirical observation relevant to this view and neither you nor Greenwald have brought a single one. Those last examples all occur after Congress voted against him 4 months after his inauguration. What the article boils down to is that technically, with a lot of will and a few risk, they could try KSA on US soil. Good reason to vote for the tea party that. What's the reason to vote for Obama? Still never got that link to explain what that vote was that changed Obama from cheerleader for rule of law (everyone gets their day in court), to mimicking Bush exactly to give trials to some, military commissions to others and no oversight whatsoever for many. http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/05/20/obam...eated-on-gitmo/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31428560/ns/po...s-capitol_hill/ http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20..._to_close_gitmo http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/911-masterm...ory?id=13291750 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/2...o-congress-veto http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/0...P=ILCNETTXT3487 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/05/2...sm-may-21-2009/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 "The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans’ e-mail stored in the cloud. As the law stands now, the authorities may obtain cloud e-mail without a warrant if it is older than 180 days, thanks to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act adopted in 1986. At that time, e-mail left on a third-party server for six months was considered to be abandoned, and thus enjoyed less privacy protection. However, the law demands warrants for the authorities to seize e-mail from a person’s hard drive. A coalition of internet service providers and other groups, known as Digital Due Process, has lobbied for an update to the law to treat both cloud- and home-stored e-mail the same, and thus require a probable-cause warrant for access. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on that topic Tuesday. The companies — including Google, AOL and AT&T — maintain that the law should be changed to reflect that consumers increasingly access their e-mail on servers, instead of downloading it to their hard drives, as a matter of course. But the Obama administration testified that imposing constitutional safeguards on e-mail stored in the cloud would be an unnecessary burden on the government. Probable-cause warrants would only get in the government’s way." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/f...ndment-email-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Related to that: the notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven For that moronic statement to tail a pure polemical rant is beyond irony. What does he mean by empirical here, that there are observable examples? Observations of what? His own party voting against him is one empirical observation relevant to this view and neither you nor Greenwald have brought a single one. Those last examples all occur after Congress voted against him 4 months after his inauguration. What the article boils down to is that technically, with a lot of will and a few risk, they could try KSA on US soil. Good reason to vote for the tea party that. What's the reason to vote for Obama? Still never got that link to explain what that vote was that changed Obama from cheerleader for rule of law (everyone gets their day in court), to mimicking Bush exactly to give trials to some, military commissions to others and no oversight whatsoever for many. http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/05/20/obam...eated-on-gitmo/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31428560/ns/po...s-capitol_hill/ http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20..._to_close_gitmo http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/911-masterm...ory?id=13291750 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/2...o-congress-veto http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/0...P=ILCNETTXT3487 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/05/2...sm-may-21-2009/ Not sure if you've posted those links to support my argument or not. http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/05/20/obam...eated-on-gitmo President Obama made an ask without a plan and ran straight into a Senate wall. why in the name of the incomprehensively stupid wasn’t a plan in place before handing Pres. Obama this resounding defeat on something as important as his pledge to close Gitmo? So he wasn't asking for anything in particular, just some money to do what he wanted. Of course that was going to be defeated. It wasn' even close. 90%+ of the vote or something. No-one believed fo a second it had a chance in hell of going through. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31428560/ns/po...s-capitol_hill/ http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20..._to_close_gitmo http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/911-masterm...ory?id=13291750 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/2...o-congress-veto http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/0...P=ILCNETTXT3487 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/05/2...sm-may-21-2009/ All come after the speech I referenced above where he supports indefinite detention without charge, and none refer to the president pushing for rule of law. Your tea-party reference is a strange one, as your posts give me the impression you believe a president does nothing more than set tone. If he's powerless in the face of senate blocks....then why should we fear the almighty strength of a tea party presidency? That's just the fear factor Obama needs to use to keep disaffected democrats voting for his ineffectual presdecy, and not a very logical one. Glenn Greenwald has another excellent post on why the president DOES have the power to do more, but chooses not to. Why he's not a shitty negotiator, just a political gameplayer. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...bama/index.html Vote Nader! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 What do you make of Obama's new budget deficit proposals HF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 What do you make of Obama's new budget deficit proposals HF? I only saw the headline $4 trillion cuts in CTs post in the UK politics thread. The republicans were only looking for £38bn weren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Apparently he's proposing a tax hike on the rich folk. Let's see how far that one gets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Apparently he's proposing a tax hike on the rich folk. Let's see how far that one gets! He's good at proposals. Like Mike Ashley proposing investment in the first team, selling nobody, challenging Europe and a diet. The tax cuts he extended for the wealthiest a few months back show what his proposals are worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 In a setback for Barack Obama, Democrats still controlling the House of Representatives have approved legislation to prevent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay from being transferred to the US for trials in criminal courts. You ask for evidence that Congress voted against Obama after 5 months of being in office, so i give it to you. You then argue that he only asked for money (i have given you a copy of his speech where he discusses more than funding) and that he wanted to be defeated. What a load of bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 In a setback for Barack Obama, Democrats still controlling the House of Representatives have approved legislation to prevent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay from being transferred to the US for trials in criminal courts. You ask for evidence that Congress voted against Obama after 5 months of being in office, so i give it to you. You then argue that he only asked for money (i have given you a copy of his speech where he discusses more than funding) and that he wanted to be defeated. What a load of bollocks. I wasn't saying congress never voted against Obama... "I'm not aware of any announcement made of his intentions other than those I linked to. Be interested to see if there were." There was no announcement of his intentions for that vote to e in opposition to, he just asked for cash...as your link reports. That speech you linked to is the one I linked to first. Where he outlines his thoughts on keeping people detained without charge, which led to Obama being criticised for embracing Bush policies of indefinate detention. His stated position has ALWAYS been what we currently have. He said that the his administration would "exhaust every avenue that we have" to prosecute detainees but there would still be some left "who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes" yet remain a threat "So going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime" to handle such detainees. In other words, thought Crime will not be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 President Obama unveiled his plan to reign in the national debt on Wednesday, proposing spending cuts and tax increases while showing he's no Manchurian candidate for the right. Obama's paean to Democratic values came just as the liberal commentariat was throwing up its hands and declaring the president a meek enabler of the Republican agenda. Obama's plan would cut the federal budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years, in contrast to the Republicans' proposed $4.4 trillion over 10 years. But the president would use different methods from the GOP deficit plan, preserving Medicare and Medicaid while upping taxes on rich Americans, reports the New York Times. Obama called the Republican proposal to lower taxes on the wealthy and dismantle Medicare "deeply pessimistic" and harmful to the elderly and poor. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 30 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I am president," he said in the only line that drew applause from an audience at George Washington University. The president has appointed VP Joe Biden to lead the tough budget negotiations with Congress looming in the coming weeks. Biden got pumped up for the battle by sleeping through a portion of the president's speech. Meanwhile, Republicans expressed disappointment that the president didn't cave to their demands. "I was naively optimistic that the president was going to give us a sincere olive branch," said Republican budget guru Paul Ryan (R-WI). New York Times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Biden got pumped up for the battle by sleeping through a portion of the president's speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Biden's hair-plugs are holding up nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now