President Obama

[Vong]

Just got back from watching the inauguration of Obama. Through the parts that I watched (some of it I just couldn't stand to listen) it was well put together. I loved the song composed by John Williams and performed by the great Yo-Yo Ma. It was funny also how Obama stumbled during his oath to office. I thought you are supposed to come prepared for this sort of thing! :rolleyes:

In any case, all the best to America's 44th President.

Oh, and what's up with George Bush Sn? The dude doesn't look too well.

[screamer581]

As usual, great speech by Obama.


Carter surprisingly looked in good health, Bush Sr. looks like he has about 3 days to live.




President Obama!

[The Postmaster General]

I thought it was funny that Obama stumbled in his oath, because it was technically the first thing he did as president, but obviously he was pretty nervous and emotional - you heard that awkward laugh he gave before stepping up and could actually see him quivering at one point. What I thought was amazing was how quickly he gained his composure and laid out the rest with his trademark cool. I kind of pictured him thinking, just before gaining his stride, "Hey, calm down. You got this!"

By law, Obama became president at noon Washington time, so it's all just a ceremony, mostly a religious one, with all the swearing to God and so forth. It was really well done though. Was it just me or did Aretha sound kind of rough? At first I thought her mic was distorted.

[RicochetShaw]

. It was funny also how Obama stumbled during his oath to office. I thought you are supposed to come prepared for this sort of thing! :rolleyes:

Actually, Chief Justice Roberts was the one who stumbled through the oath. Obama had it memorized, and eyed Roberts when he read it incorrectly... hence the "stumble."

[Homyrrh]

As a civilian, I'm going to be open-minded about going forward. All snide remarks and genuine disgruntlementss aside, it's at least refreshing to see a chief executive whom the people may not scrutinize to the degree of absurdity. Neither I nor anyone can jusdge a presidency until his due time of judgement, well after his first 100 hours or 100 days.

And as a cadet, the new commander-in-chief is about nine links above me in my chain-of-command. My devotion is unwavering and infinite.

[The Postmaster General]

Actually, Chief Justice Roberts was the one who stumbled through the oath. Obama had it memorized, and eyed Roberts when he read it incorrectly... hence the "stumble."

That's funny, I thought it was all part that nervousness I felt coming from him as he was stepping up. Maybe Roberts was feeling it too. It's crazy how big that whole thing is. The world is watching, and all.

[BakeTheMooCow]

The poem that the woman read right after Obama's speech was terrible. And Justice Roberts did fuck up the oath. Otherwise, the event was pretty cool. I liked the speech a lot.

[Ayestrain]

Watching Obama go through these formalities makes me proud to be an American today.

[ilovemovies]

It was a decent speech I suppose but it was so long that when it was over it felt like Obama's first term was over already.

[Lindsey]

Actually, Chief Justice Roberts was the one who stumbled through the oath. Obama had it memorized, and eyed Roberts when he read it incorrectly... hence the "stumble."

Yep... Just about to chime in! Here's the link to the clip:

http://www.tmz.com/2009/01/20/chief-justice-screws-up-oath-obama-blanks/

[Homyrrh]

Damn, they could've just rented a high school gym for $200/hr, grabbed a Bible from the library and not spent so much of my money.

[Jamesadin]

God, the poet was terrible.

The piece arranged by John Williams and the speech were fantastic though. When I heard that the music was arranged by him, I knew that all members of JoBlo had just collectively jizzed themselves. Good stuff.

[screamer581]

It was a decent speech I suppose but it was so long that when it was over it felt like Obama's first term was over already.

That was a great speech, you sure you weren't listening to a old John Kerry speech from 2004?



Christ! Ted Kennedy just collapsed. It sounds like a seizure. Senator Robert Byrd is apparently having health problems as well.

[Bourne101]

It was a decent speech I suppose but it was so long that when it was over it felt like Obama's first term was over already.

Yep, not a great speech, but a decent one.

[ilovemovies]

It was decent with moments that were stirring. He definitely knows how to deliver a speech.

But it was LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG! That's why I was joking about that.

But the priest or whatever he was, I forget had a speech that felt nearly as long. And it was even worse since it was mostly about religion. Not my favorite topic to listen to.

[Monotreme]

I was most surprised and impressed by the truly, genuinely hearty cheers and whoops that came from the audience every time Obama said anything! This guy really has the support of America going for him - people are really, REALLY passionate about him, and that gives him a huge advantage. Watching the inauguration made me feel proud to be a foreigner holding a dual U.S. citizenship... ;) Here's hoping for great things from the new leader of the free world!

[Preston_79]

Obama's Inauguration had some good moments. I just wish it hadn't come with such a hefty price tag.

It's amazing to see so many in our country get behind a president this way. I'm really looking forward to the next four years.

[Vong]

But the priest or whatever he was, I forget had a speech that felt nearly as long. And it was even worse since it was mostly about religion. Not my favorite topic to listen to.

Yeah, that was one of the parts I couldn't listen to either. I muted the entire thing.

[shoe1985]

After 8 years of failed policies, it is time for change. I just hope people don't get their hopes up and expect Obama to come in, and make things better tomorrow. It is going to take a long time to get the country back into shape.

The party is today, tomorrow starts the real fun.

[Homyrrh]

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 -- 4:04 PM ET
-----

Dow Falls More Than 330 Points; S.&P. Drops More Than 5 Percent

After hearing the new president's inaugural address,
investors went back to selling stocks, sending the major
indexes down sharply. Traders on the floor of the New York
Stock Exchange paused at times to watch the inauguration
ceremony and President Barack Obama's remarks, but the
transition of power did not erase investors' intensifying
concerns about the struggling economy. At the close, the Dow
Jones industrial average was down more than 330 points, or
about 4 percent, while the broader Standard & Poor's
500-stock index fell 5.2 percent.

???

[outsyder]

Yeah, that was one of the parts I couldn't listen to either. I muted the entire thing.

It sounded like an infomercial for Bibles or something.

[Homyrrh]

It sounded like an infomercial for Bibles or something.
Holy smokes...you'd think it's like President Obama swore on a Bible or something...

[outsyder]

Holy smokes...you'd think it's like President Obama swore on a Bible or something...

And what might that have to do with the preacher's tone?

[Cosimo]

so many people seem to think he is a saviour, these people will be disappointed

[The Postmaster General]

???


I think it was just a slow trading day. It's kind of surprising the market was even open today, since it was a national holiday of sorts.

[shoe1985]

so many people seem to think he is a saviour, these people will be disappointed

Sounds like we have a McCain supporter here, boo hoo.

Honestly, it is going to take probably 2 years to get the economy back in shape. We have a long ways to go, and we are in the middle of the problems.

Obama is exactly what we need. Look at everyone that is encouraged to work harder just because of him. He offers hope. We have seen 8 years of tax cut after tax cut, guess what? They didn't work.

So, sit back, and enjoy the ride. At least we seem to have a President that seems intelligent compared to the last one. Why did people elect Bush again? I voted Kerry, wasn't old enough to vote for Gore.

As for the stock market, I was shocked it was down, I thought they were closed today, though. But, it makes sense, the banks are still hurting, and will continue to do so for a while. We are now facing the business credit problems. It started with Circuit City, and it will continue with other businesses.

[Homyrrh]

He offers hope.
Peace through superior...oratory?

Sounds like we have a Hype supporter here.

[shoe1985]

Peace through superior...oratory?

Sounds like we have a Hype supporter here.

Nope, just going by what people say. All day long they, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and so on, have said he offers hope for his race, the people of this country, and the future.

Now, will he do a good job? Nobody can say with a 100% yes or no. He is determined, which is what we need in a leader.

On this past election day, people saw the same thing as we have had for 8 years and someone who offers something different. They went with the latter because they saw what happened these last 8 years. He offers a different course, and what many call hope.

Even with a crappy economy, people seem excited for the future.

For me, I am going to just enjoy the ride for the next 4 years. We can't do much worse than Bush.

[screamer581]

Where is JJ?????

[ElderPredator]

That was breathtaking speech and I believe every word he said. Just listen to him from the clip below...

Link: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=szsUkxTuRYM

[Homyrrh]

Nope, just going by what people say. All day long they, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and so on, have said he offers hope for his race, the people of this country, and the future.

Now, will he do a good job? Nobody can say with a 100% yes or no. He is determined, which is what we need in a leader.

On this past election day, people saw the same thing as we have had for 8 years and someone who offers something different. They went with the latter because they saw what happened these last 8 years. He offers a different course, and what many call hope.

Even with a crappy economy, people seem excited for the future.

For me, I am going to just enjoy the ride for the next 4 years. We can't do much worse than Bush.
Yeah, I'm a smartass sometimes. Quite often actually. Just don't mistake a "McCain supporter" for an "Obama discerner". Aside from past arguments, and exclusive of members of this forum, I really feel there is a ubiquitous naivete among many of President Obama's champions.

We can do much worse than President Bush, and possibly have already, but I still try to remain optimistic about the new commander-in-chief. I disagree with pretty much every facet of his existence, minus a few mutual opinions, but I am in the same place as history itself, unable to judge a leader until his hour has come.

Again, when in uniform...unquestioning.

[Homyrrh]

That was breathtaking speech and I believe every word he said. Just listen to him from the clip below...

Link: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=szsUkxTuRYM
You have my props, friendo. I sit at my laptop, defeated.

[Criminal Rock]

...Aside from past arguments, and exclusive of members of this forum, I really feel there is a ubiquitous naivete among many of President Obama's champions.

In what way? Share with us a few examples of how these particular supporters are naive. What separates them from us? ("us" being the supporters on this forum)

[Homyrrh]

In what way? Share with us a few examples of how these particular supporters are naive. What separates them from us? ("us" being the supporters on this forum)
These particular supporters back that savior of a race, that hero of Afro-America, he of a stature comparable to Mandela and King. These particular supporters know the heavenly bounty we all shall reap over the next four years. These particular supporters quiver at the mere digital sight of that Savior of America. Those particular supporters aren't really those exclusive of the boar, but rather those who can't again argue for The Great Hype.

[Jon Lyrik]

Really? I just want someone to run this country with at least an illusion of intelligence and decency.

[Cyclonus]

Does anyone else have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that...it's over? That Dubya is gone for good, after a particularly nasty, frustrating and downright bizzare eight years? Really, I mean it. just try saying aloud, "George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States." A bit odd and awkward to say, isn't it?

I just want someone to run this country with at least an illusion of intelligence and decency.


Unfortunately, Bush set the bar so low that just about anyone else could win this purely by default. Still, while I'm cautious about buying into all the hype, I do hope that Obama will be a good president.

[Homyrrh]

Really? I just want someone to run this country with at least an illusion of intelligence and decency.
We'll see if it's an "illlusion" of superior policy or not...many of us just ask that we actually judge the man and his presidency once it has been enacted and not on the grounds of an eloquent campaign. As I had twice mentioned, I'm entirely satisfied to cast my judgment at the appropriate juncture. To suggest otherwise is irrational.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I couldn't watch the inauguration, but I can't imagine any other world leader being able to draw a crowd of two million people. While President Obama doesn't make me lose control at the very sight of him, it is nice to see a large majority of the populace actually love and respect him--and not in that Dear Leader sort of way, but a general confidence and hope in his abilities.

President Obama. President Obama. President Obama. The current president: President Barack Obama. No more of this President-elect shit. I can finally say "President Obama" without being corrected by some smarmy jerk.

[Jon Lyrik]

Superior policy? As Cyclonus said, the Bush administration could realistically only be worse and more malevolent if it was actually competent. Then again, Cheney's richer, so maybe the goals were fulfilled.

Thing is with Obama is that he's cool-headed, extremely well-organized and at least pretends to reach across the aisle. On the other hand, Cheney was making jokes about being Darth Vader or Palpatine while still in office. The real powers that be have been plundering the country for decades now, but does anyone really think he'll help them do this as much or more than Bush did? It doesn't seem to fit, nothing I've seen in how this guy works shows him to be asleep at the wheel when it comes to accountability, and there aren't any benefits to doing that at this point with how cynical and shaky the country is right now.

[Homyrrh]

Superior policy? As Cyclonus said, the Bush administration could realistically only be worse and more malevolent if it was actually competent. Then again, Cheney's richer, so maybe the goals were fulfilled.

Thing is with Obama is that he's cool-headed, extremely well-organized and at least pretends to reach across the aisle. On the other hand, Cheney was making jokes about being Darth Vader or Palpatine while still in office. The real powers that be have been plundering the country for decades now, but does anyone really think he'll help them do this as much or more than Bush did? It doesn't seem to fit, nothing I've seen in how this guy works shows him to be asleep at the wheel when it comes to accountability, and there aren't any benefits to doing that at this point with how cynical and shaky the country is right now.
Honestly, I elected (pun...ba-dum pish) not to use your terms "intelligence" and "decency", insteading opting for a generic application of "superior policy" to generally refer to the notion that President Obama may be an overall better president than any of his 43 predecessors.

I understand an optimism for his intellect and an appreciation for his character, however subjective that may be, and can even agree, though based on somewhat different standards, that a degree of change is necessary for this nation to grow from it's current state. However, I am fearful about the undue level of general hype that's carrying from an astounding campaign to an inevitably difficult presidency.

Again, and finally, I feel no one can discern the worth of this administration until the very moment that the phone rings at 3 AM.

Sorry...

[The Postmaster General]

Homyrrh, the thing for me is that these things you are saying about Obama supporters could as easily be said about Bush supporters - the naivety. I mean, how many people expected Bush to clean up the Middle East, get everyone off welfare, and make America #1. That was the same stuff McCain was running on.

At the end of the day, it's just what face you want leading the country, and America decided it was time for change.




About the oath "flub" -- I can't believe what a big deal it's being made into, at least on my local news they had a political expert from the university on to dismiss the idea, that they just hinted at, that the flub was not intentional by the justice as a jab at Obama for being one of 22 senators who didn't vote him in. I mean... wha??

And to clarify, it was Justice Roberts who tried doing the oath by memory. Something interesting mentioned is how ballsy a move that was as Justices generally aren't seen in the limelight, and here he was trying to go all out in front of the world.

[Badbird]

It's gonna feel good to drink the tears of the crybaby conservatives/republicans/Bush supporters (all 22%) for at least the next four years.

While we don't know what will happen, we DO know that our President will not embarrass us in front of the world by acting like a moron. Nor will he take us into a war that is illegal and unjust. Nor will he ignore cities destroyed by hurricanes.

Bush and co. have said that in time, history will look kindly upon them. Guess what? All the time in the world isn't going to make the Katrina response any faster.

Obama has his shit together, plain and simple. He isn't playing cowboy and the world isn't a third grade playground. Bush has totally fucked us with this war and all its aftershocks. This is a HUGE mess to clean up, but I think that it will finally BE cleaned up at some point, and once again a Democrat will clean up the wreckage left by his Republican counterparts (just as Clinton did after Reagan/Bush).

In other words: This shit just got real.

[shoe1985]

Really? I just want someone to run this country with at least an illusion of intelligence and decency.

I agree with you 100%.

I do understand what Homyrrh is saying though. A lot of people believe Obama is going to save everything, but he is just 1 person. There are a lot of problems with this country, and they will not all be solved in 4 years, if ever.

I have read were people disagree with the government stepping in to save the economy. If you studied the Great Depression you will find that is what got us out of the Depression. There are many supporters who do think Obama is going to fix things today, when in reality, it is going to take probably 2 years if not more to fix the economy.

All we can do is look towards the future because the past is over.

[Vong]

I do have to agree with Homryyh as well. There is a certain level of naivity among Obama supporters, domestic and abroad. Obama isn't pushing for any radical liberal changes to the system. "Change" for most people would be the reformation of the messed up bureaucracy that manages over the country; the dozens of committees that the president has to appeal to to make anything possible. He is, for the most part, keeping with the status quo.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I do have to agree with Homryyh as well. There is a certain level of naivity among Obama supporters, domestic and abroad. Obama isn't pushing for any radical liberal changes to the system. "Change" for most people would be the reformation of the messed up bureaucracy that manages over the country; the dozens of committees that the president has to appeal to to make anything possible. He is, for the most part, keeping with the status quo.

It's mostly the rabid, obsessed Obama supporters who possess this naivete. Coincidentally enough, these are the supporters who always end up doing T.V. interviews. That said, Obama is probably the best we could do considering the current circumstances. It's pretty hard to run on a platform of Change in a country that tends to vote conservatively and win by 9.5 million votes. America didn't vote for a Ralph Nader or a Harvey Milk, and not even hardcore Obama supporters are naive and gullible enough to believe that we just did or ever will. You're right that he is a status quo president, and he obviously isn't going to be able to solve most of the real problems that affect this country because they're rooted too deeply in the way our country runs (namely, the grotesque excesses of the military industrial complex).
He's also been pandering to the right in many ways. Though many of them have been showing him respect in return, there is a portion of the country he will never appease and shouldn't even bother. What bothers me is that he's considering keeping the Bush tax cuts, which pretty much goes against everything he campaigned on.

But here's where he's been far superior than his predecessors, and this is what gives me "Hope": he's willing to acknowledge that environmental detriment is a gravely serious issue and that serious action has to be taken. He has also spent most of his political career pushing for ethics reform and more transparency in government, so it seems natural to assume that he'll seek to do just that during his presidency. He's spoken out in favor for gays in the military, the first issue that Clinton had to compromise on. He seems real about closing Guantanamo, and has already taken the initiative within his first day of office. Despite his tough talk, I seriously doubt that we will engage in any more preemptive warfare. Even though some of these aren't issues of serious greatness, these small issues certainly do count and will add up.

[Bourne101]

Finally the day has come that Obama can start actually making some decisions. I'm tired of all the fucking talk, preaching, hokey quotes, and rap songs. Now it's time to see if he can walk the walk.

[Cosimo]

Sounds like we have a McCain supporter here, boo hoo.



no not at all, i just think alot of people expect too much from him.

climet change
wars
economy

ouch!

[countchocula]

I don't think anyone is expecting immediate relief. America is just happy. It's okay.

Oh, and Aretha Franklin FUCKING SUCKED! Why couldn't they get someone else? She butchered a beautiful moment. Stupid bitch. The media is afraid to say anything, but EVERYONE knows she sucked. She looked ridiculous and she sounded awful. Stupid bitch.

[Cyclonus]

I'm sure some of you have heard that as we speak, he's drafting an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. Comments?

[Vong]

I'm sure some of you have heard that as we speak, he's drafting an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. Comments?

Only one: 'bout fucking time!

[Preston_79]

Finally the day has come that Obama can start actually making some decisions. I'm tired of all the fucking talk, preaching, hokey quotes, and rap songs. Now it's time to see if he can walk the walk.

Obama doesn't have to make any progress at all over the next four years. If he can't get anything done it's only because Bush fucked things up so much.
He probably won't actually achieve real change till his second term if we elect him for another one. It will take at the very least one term to clean up this mess.



And that's me being sarcastic. Sadly this is what I hear some people saying.

[Homyrrh]

And "retaking" the Oath behind closed doors...transparent doors, of course.

[jolanar]

I'm sure some of you have heard that as we speak, he's drafting an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. Comments?

To be clear it's just the detention camp. The base itself isn't going anywhere.

[The Postmaster General]

Can we please just stop using worst case examples? I didn't like it when Bush supporters were made out to be inbreed rednecks with a 5th grade education, and I don't like it anymore when Obama supporters are made out to be angry urbanites with a 5th grade education. Let's get real, every president has supporters who are blind to their flaws.

And I'm not even getting where people are getting this notion that any majority of people really expects problems to be solved by the end of the week. Who the hell is saying this? The Nightly News? Right. And the water is also poisoned, update at 11. Drink up, folks.

[Criminal Rock]

Bubba beat me to it the point, once again.

A few conservatives seem to have cast a stereotype on Obama's supporters, I've seen it on TV and have heard more than enough say the same kind of garbage we've heard here. I just have a hard time believing the majority or even a large minority of the people who support our President think he's infallible, let alone consider the guy a "saviour"... yes, I'm sure they exist, but their numbers are not "many" as some might consider. To believe otherwise would certainly merit naivete.

[Cosimo]

i'm from across the pond so i go by what i see on newsnight, popular african american vox pop

[Homyrrh]

As we jump ship in Iraq, I truly hope that those forces are simply relocated to Afghanistan.

[Cyclonus]

I understand that's the plan. After all, that's where Bin Laden was hiding in the first place!

[Vong]

As we jump ship in Iraq, I truly hope that those forces are simply relocated to Afghanistan.

...from one clusterfuck to another...

[Homyrrh]

...from one clusterfuck to another...
Call what you'd like, but no one can disagree with the vitality of an increased troop presence in Afghanistan (and apparently, especially in the north). Afghanistan's failures are almost exclusively because of the grave lack of personnel.

And, truly, is Afghanistan directly comparable to Iraq in scope and/or mission? No, it isn't.

Think the NY Times touched parts of the issue today. The joke over there (in Afghanistan) is that the "Taliban is wherever US forces are not".

[Vong]

And, truly, is Afghanistan directly comparable to Iraq in scope and/or mission? No, it isn't.

They're both mistakes and clear violations of international law...at least they have that in common.

[Homyrrh]

They're both mistakes and clear violations of international law...at least they have that in common.
What element of the Afghan conflict is "a mistake"?

[Vong]

What element of the Afghan conflict is "a mistake"?

Many "elements" come to mind...one that sticks out is the simple fact that we shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Cosimo]

What element of the Afghan conflict is "a mistake"?

um the killing of innocent women and children?

[outsyder]

Many "elements" come to mind...one that sticks out is the simple fact that we shouldn't be there in the first place.

If failed states become a legitimate danger to other states, you don't consider it justified to interfere?

[Homyrrh]

um the killing of innocent women and children?
This is an unfortunate, inevitable facet of warfare that is entirely irrelevant of the fundamental basis for invading and occupying the nation that houses the very nucleus of the jihad against us, we evil infidels.

I cannot believe this is a debate. Iraq warrants legitimate questioning in discussion of our mission and presence there (as does a 16-month timetable...), but is it actually being suggested that we allow terrorism to, as outsyder mentions, tyannically rule this failed state and gravely endanger other nations, neighboring and abroad (namely...US!)?

[Cosimo]

This is an unfortunate, inevitable facet of warfare that is entirely irrelevant of the fundamental basis for invading and occupying the nation that houses the very nucleus of the jihad against us, we evil infidels.



for me it can't be justified

[Homyrrh]

for me it can't be justified
That's understood, though it would pretty much relegate you to pacifism.

[Vong]

This is an unfortunate, inevitable facet of warfare that is entirely irrelevant of the fundamental basis for invading and occupying the nation that houses the very nucleus of the jihad against us, we evil infidels.

You justify the slaughtering of thousands of civilians to capture/kill one man? One man that isn't even known to be in Afghanistan? One man whose followers come from other Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria?

If you are to justify the invasion of one country based on the "fact" that numerous "al Quada" "agents" came from Afghanistan, than you would have to concede that a precedent is set and thus warrants an invasion of other nations that house these "evil-doers". So why aren't the trumpets being sounded, and the warriors gathered to march on the Middle East to capture/kill the other members of this "organization"?

I cannot believe this is a debate. Iraq warrants legitimate questioning in discussion of our mission and presence there (as does a 16-month timetable...), but is it actually being suggested that we allow terrorism to, as outsyder mentions, tyannically rule this failed state and gravely endanger other nations, neighboring and abroad (namely...US!)?

It's ironic and damned funny that you would say what I highlighted in bold, since creating this "failed state" was the United States' fault to begin with.

Was it not the CIA who taught and trained the Mujahedeen to fight against the Soviet Union? Was it not the CIA who promoted the use of guerilla warfare and "terrorist tactics" on the Soviets to drive them out? And when the job was done and the Soviets retreated, the CIA and US agents jumped ship and left the country in complete anarchy. You see, the "terrorism" and "failed state" that you see before you exists because of your country's misguided and backwards foreign policy. The Taliban is the creation of the CIA.

Rising to power in Afghanistan the Taliban pushed their conservative religious views on the country, which included the group to murder 5000 women school teachers to prevent girls from getting an education. Communist leaders and supporters were being executed and villages that housed dessenters were being burned down. These and many more attrocious acts were being committed under the watchful eye of the CIA.

History has a funny way of repeating itself, though it is often known to repeat with alittle added irony for flare. The "evil" Soviet Union being replaced by the "good" allied forces in Afghanistan, only this time the good guys are fighting that which they created. The weapons the CIA gave the Mujahedeen are the same ones being used against the allied forces, as well as the techniques and tactics that were taught to them.

The Soviet Union left Afghanistan in defeat after years of warfare and thousands of their soliders dead. It's only a matter of time now before the invading forces in Afghanistan follow the same path.

[The Postmaster General]

What do you think should be done Vong?

[Homyrrh]

You justify the slaughtering of thousands of civilians to capture/kill one man? One man that isn't even known to be in Afghanistan? One man whose followers come from other Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria?

If you are to justify the invasion of one country based on the "fact" that numerous "al Quada" "agents" came from Afghanistan, than you would have to concede that a precedent is set and thus warrants an invasion of other nations that house these "evil-doers". So why aren't the trumpets being sounded, and the warriors gathered to march on the Middle East to capture/kill the other members of this "organization"?



It's ironic and damned funny that you would say what I highlighted in bold, since creating this "failed state" was the United States' fault to begin with.

Was it not the CIA who taught and trained the Mujahedeen to fight against the Soviet Union? Was it not the CIA who promoted the use of guerilla warfare and "terrorist tactics" on the Soviets to drive them out? And when the job was done and the Soviets retreated, the CIA and US agents jumped ship and left the country in complete anarchy. You see, the "terrorism" and "failed state" that you see before you exists because of your country's misguided and backwards foreign policy. The Taliban is the creation of the CIA.

Rising to power in Afghanistan the Taliban pushed their conservative religious views on the country, which included the group to murder 5000 women school teachers to prevent girls from getting an education. Communist leaders and supporters were being executed and villages that housed dessenters were being burned down. These and many more attrocious acts were being committed under the watchful eye of the CIA.

History has a funny way of repeating itself, though it is often known to repeat with alittle added irony for flare. The "evil" Soviet Union being replaced by the "good" allied forces in Afghanistan, only this time the good guys are fighting that which they created. The weapons the CIA gave the Mujahedeen are the same ones being used against the allied forces, as well as the techniques and tactics that were taught to them.

The Soviet Union left Afghanistan in defeat after years of warfare and thousands of their soliders dead. It's only a matter of time now before the invading forces in Afghanistan follow the same path.

I justify nothing. Civilian casualties are as unfortunate as any other element of armed conflict, just or otherwise, whether it's in Afghanistan or the WTC towers. To avoid one war because of the possibility of civilian casualties is to never go to war again.

I'm sure some portion, significant or not, of the foundation of the "failed state" of Afghanistan is rooted in the intelligence community's efforts to defeat the Soviet Union in the early 1980s. What I am not sure of is how this has any bearing on how we handle this situation now. I am also not sure that the "techniques and tactics" are unique to Afghanistan...the nature of guerilla warfare is fundamentally common to jihadists everywhere (and to a significant degree, has been for time immemorial).

If you have a suggestion other than taking the troops from Iraq to clean-up Afghanistan, go ahead. Otherwise, I'm honestly having trouble translating the logic of what you're trying to say.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/08/images/time_cover_chad_hunt.jpg

[Potter82]

About the oath "flub" -- I can't believe what a big deal it's being made into, at least on my local news they had a political expert from the university on to dismiss the idea, that they just hinted at, that the flub was not intentional by the justice as a jab at Obama for being one of 22 senators who didn't vote him in. I mean... wha??

I totally agree. I remember watching CNN and they were whining about how this didn't bode well for Obama's promise of transparency which induced much eye rolling on my part. No one cares that it wasn't televised except the damn media who throws a hissy fit whenever they aren't given access to something they want when they want it - remember how they thew an absolute fit a few months ago when Obama delayed releasing that Blago report for a month because they were asked to do so by prosecutor to hold off releasing it? It was really childish actually. If there's any reason why it wasn't televised it was to spare Roberts any more embarrassment.

[Potter82]

Bubba beat me to it the point, once again.

A few conservatives seem to have cast a stereotype on Obama's supporters, I've seen it on TV and have heard more than enough say the same kind of garbage we've heard here. I just have a hard time believing the majority or even a large minority of the people who support our President think he's infallible, let alone consider the guy a "saviour"... yes, I'm sure they exist, but their numbers are not "many" as some might consider. To believe otherwise would certainly merit naivete.s

you know, I read a lot of message board during the run up to the election about the race and I can't recall a single time when an Obama supporter referred to him as a messiah. Not once. The only time I have ever seen the word saviour or messiah used in reference to Obama was when it was used by conservatives to disparage Obama supporters for the fact that they were really passionate about their candidate whereas most conservatives seemed to only half heartedly support their own.

I am a Obama supporter and many of my friends are as well and I know none of us expect him to work miracles, we just expect him to do a good job and pursue to pragmatic policies.

I wonder where this messiah garbage started? my guess is Limbaugh - why people listen to that idiot is beyond me.

[Homyrrh]

Then back to the oath ordeal...

I had no issue with the flub; it was plainly Roberts' failure. However, the Obama administration's second attempt, the "validation" if you will, was legitimately sketchy. No rolling cameras, only one real photo, no Bible, no audio, no notice to the press (CNN filed some type of official grievance), etc.

He's obviously the president regardless (well, as we all know, as of 20 January at noon), but the quasi-secrecy of the second oath had me a bit uneasy. It could be just a kind gesture to a very embarrased Roberts, and it was just a legal way of avoiding conflict down the line, but hard to take at face value.

[Vong]

What do you think should be done Vong?

Thankfully I'm not in the position to decide what should be done. Because I wouldn't know what to do. The reason being is because I never would have made the decision to enter Afghanistan in the first place.

But all I'm really saying Bubba, is give peace a chance...

To avoid one war because of the possibility of civilian casualties is to never go to war again.

And that's a bad thing?


I'm sure some portion, significant or not, of the foundation of the "failed state" of Afghanistan is rooted in the intelligence community's efforts to defeat the Soviet Union in the early 1980s.

Don't try and absolve the US government's power and authority it had over Afghanistan. The CIA is under the command of the United States government, it is not a seperate entity. Whatever happened in Afghanistan during the 1970s and early 1980s was under the watchful eye of the US government.

What I am not sure of is how this has any bearing on how we handle this situation now.

History is our greatest teacher. If people were educated in it there would have been no invasion into Afghanistan and the conundrum that exists would not have come to pass. I have no solution to what should be done now in order to successfully bring peace to Afghanistan, limit civilian casualties in the process and pull troops out. As I said to Bubba before, Afghanistan should never have been invaded in the first place since such a resolution is impossible to resolve correctly under the current circumstances.


I am also not sure that the "techniques and tactics" are unique to Afghanistan...the nature of guerilla warfare is fundamentally common to jihadists everywhere (and to a significant degree, has been for time immemorial).

Before the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan, the Afghani's had no assault rifles, surface-to-air missles or other advanced weaponry. They were provided to them by the CIA, along with the "techniques and tactics" that were taught. I'm not saying guerilla warfare is unique to Afghanistan. I'm saying that the guerilla warfare they have always known was made v2.0 once the American's showed up.

Otherwise, I'm honestly having trouble translating the logic of what you're trying to say.

My logic is simple:
a) the root cause to terrorism in Afghanistan is the United States' intervention in the Soviet Union's war against the Mujahedeen
b) the terrorism that you so passionately want to root out of Afghanistan is the product of the United States
c) the United States, and it's allies, have entered a war by their own fault.
d) Afghanistan has become a catch-22 scenario: damned if you stay, damned if you leave.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Then back to the oath ordeal...

I had no issue with the flub; it was plainly Roberts' failure. However, the Obama administration's second attempt, the "validation" if you will, was legitimately sketchy. No rolling cameras, only one real photo, no Bible, no audio, no notice to the press (CNN filed some type of official grievance), etc.

He's obviously the president regardless (well, as we all know, as of 20 January at noon), but the quasi-secrecy of the second oath had me a bit uneasy. It could be just a kind gesture to a very embarrased Roberts, and it was just a legal way of avoiding conflict down the line, but hard to take at face value.

You are being paranoid. Stop being paranoid. From the campaign alone, Obama is the most transparent and overexposed president we've ever had. Just because there is one case of Obama doing anything that wasn't captured on film by eight different networks doesn't mean there is anything malicious or even questionable about the retaking of the oath. He isn't even the first president to take the oath again. Politically, it was necessary because there are some idiots named Alan Keyes who think that Hawaii isn't a state and that Obama is not eligible to be president.

[Homyrrh]

Thankfully I'm not in the position to decide what should be done. Because I wouldn't know what to do. The reason being is because I never would have made the decision to enter Afghanistan in the first place.

But all I'm really saying Bubba, is give peace a chance...



And that's a bad thing?




Don't try and absolve the US government's power and authority it had over Afghanistan. The CIA is under the command of the United States government, it is not a seperate entity. Whatever happened in Afghanistan during the 1970s and early 1980s was under the watchful eye of the US government.



History is our greatest teacher. If people were educated in it there would have been no invasion into Afghanistan and the conundrum that exists would not have come to pass. I have no solution to what should be done now in order to successfully bring peace to Afghanistan, limit civilian casualties in the process and pull troops out. As I said to Bubba before, Afghanistan should never have been invaded in the first place since such a resolution is impossible to resolve correctly under the current circumstances.




Before the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan, the Afghani's had no assault rifles, surface-to-air missles or other advanced weaponry. They were provided to them by the CIA, along with the "techniques and tactics" that were taught. I'm not saying guerilla warfare is unique to Afghanistan. I'm saying that the guerilla warfare they have always known was made v2.0 once the American's showed up.



My logic is simple:
a) the root cause to terrorism in Afghanistan is the United States' intervention in the Soviet Union's war against the Mujahedeen
b) the terrorism that you so passionately want to root out of Afghanistan is the product of the United States
c) the United States, and it's allies, have entered a war by their own fault.
d) Afghanistan has become a catch-22 scenario: damned if you stay, damned if you leave.
Your four points of logic are still fallacies.

(a) and (b) are the same point. Both are hyperbole and almost entirely incorrect. The "root" or terrorism is Fundamental Islam, not the supplying of weapons to Afghan guerillas 30 years ago (which is simply the means they choose for murder).

(c) is ridiculous, though I think you just worded it incorrectly. We "entered a war by our own fault"? We entered a war by our own accord/fault/choice...?

(d) has some elements of truth. If we stay in Iraq, there are inherent military casualties. But if we don't, we inevitably risk civilian casualties to a much greater degree.

And your ultimate point, that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan because the Taliban is committing acts of terrorism againsit civilian targets with 30+-year old weapons that Charlie Wilson gave them , is the single most outrageous assertion that I have read on this board.

[Homyrrh]

You are being paranoid. Stop being paranoid. From the campaign alone, Obama is the most transparent and overexposed president we've ever had. Just because there is one case of Obama doing anything that wasn't captured on film by eight different networks doesn't mean there is anything malicious or even questionable about the retaking of the oath. He isn't even the first president to take the oath again. Politically, it was necessary because there are some idiots named Alan Keyes who think that Hawaii isn't a state and that Obama is not eligible to be president.
He's definitely overexposed. But whether he is the world's most transparent politican in very subjective...who can tell.

However, this was why I felt the process seemed a bit "off". Why, on the same day he signs Executive Orders promoting more transparency in American government, does he go behind closed doors and do this? Wouldn't he want as much proof as possible?

These are objective questions. I had concluded my post with the assertion that there is bound to be a rational explanation, quite probably to keep Chief Justice Roberts out of the limelight, though the act was still out-of-character and deserving of explanation.

[The Heart Collector]

seriously, man? being concerned about transparency and the oath is one step removed from wanting to see obama's birth certificate.

[Homyrrh]

seriously, man? being concerned about transparency and the oath is one step removed from wanting to see obama's birth certificate.
Yeah, I can't deny it's pretty trivial. At the least though, it's mildy irksome to see someone trying to be so open and transparent not be entirely revealing about this.

[shoe1985]

I don't get this whole thing about him taking the oath again? Roberts messed up, Obama probably wanted to make sure it was correctly. To not make Roberts look like an ass, he tried to do it behind closed doors so nobody would know he did it for Roberts, but mainly so it wouldn't come back to bite him in the ass.

Homyrrh, Vong is pretty much correct. We gave the guns and other weapons to terrorists. It came back to bite us hard.

People say Iraq can be a democracy, I disagree. Give it a few years, or until the next election, then you will see religion come back out again. So many people want control over there, based on their ideals.

I find it funny how people are getting upset over the things Obama is doing. Overturning abortion, as example, the guy is pro choice, what did you think he would do? It is for international polics, so, the world is overpopulated as is. Give it time, we will run out of land and resources one day, then we can look back and say, "Maybe we should have done something to slow down the population growth."

[Homyrrh]

Homyrrh, Vong is pretty much correct. We gave the guns and other weapons to terrorists. It came back to bite us hard.

I'll leave the "re-oath" be, but this is entirely wrong. Vong is right that we/CIA/Gust Avrakatos/Julia Roberts supplied them weapons for a certain purpose, and I obviously would not deny a simple historical fact. But to imply we shouldn't be in Afghanistan because we supplied these firearms to Afghan fighters is ridiculous.

We must be in Afghanistan to neutralize the greater threats of terrorism, not to instill democracy or overthrow a dictator, etc. The appearance of the weapon wielded by whom we fight does not matter. I know I have to be reading this wrong; it's simply ludacris.

Again, I agree that much of what that battle us with is branded with "USA", but I cannot see an presence of any logic in why that should singularly deter us from operating in Afghanistan.

The women and children argument is a sombering fact indeed, but each instance of armed conflict, from a open conventional war to urban terrorist-hunting to pure defense-of-self has tangential casualties that cannot be avoided. No one enjoys this, but those very unfortunate civilian casualties in the Middle East are miniscule compared to 3000+ on a single September morning.

[Homyrrh]

Haha, the phrase "threats of terrorism" in my above post got ad-linked to an advertisement site about fighting the threat of wieght loss.

[shoe1985]

I feel we should be in Afghanistan, not Iraq though. Osama was in Afghanistan, we should attack them to get him. Our problem was with him, nobody else.

[Homyrrh]

I feel we should be in Afghanistan, not Iraq though. Osama was in Afghanistan, we should attack them to get him. Our problem was with him, nobody else.
Yeah man, and that's what I had said, that aside from our presence in Iraq, justified or otherwise, we NEED to be in Afghanistan for what is simply self-preservation.

[Vong]

Your four points of logic are still fallacies.

(a) and (b) are the same point. Both are hyperbole and almost entirely incorrect. The "root" or terrorism is Fundamental Islam, not the supplying of weapons to Afghan guerillas 30 years ago (which is simply the means they choose for murder).

They are the same point because it's step-logic (ie. A leads to B leads to C etc.)

To limit terrorism to religious ideals is false. There is motivation and a purpose beyond what religious doctrine or fundamentalist notions calls for. They have targeted the U.S. specifically for a reason; a built up hatred from decades of their prescence on their land.

(c) is ridiculous, though I think you just worded it incorrectly. We "entered a war by our own fault"? We entered a war by our own accord/fault/choice...?

Poor choice of words, my bad.

(d) has some elements of truth. If we stay in Iraq, there are inherent military casualties. But if we don't, we inevitably risk civilian casualties to a much greater degree.

Everything about d) is true; be it in Afghanistan or Iraq, we are FUBAR'd.

And your ultimate point, that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan because the Taliban is committing acts of terrorism againsit civilian targets with 30+-year old weapons that Charlie Wilson gave them , is the single most outrageous assertion that I have read on this board.

If you believe this is my "ultimate point" you have misunderstood me. I originally countered your point in rooting out terrorism in Afghanistan by pointing out that the terror existed because of a repeat in history. There are dozens of reasons that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. One of which I already mentioned a dozen posts prior, and many other reasons members of this board have pointed out in the hundreds of posts about Afghanistan.

The women and children argument is a sombering fact indeed, but each instance of armed conflict, from a open conventional war to urban terrorist-hunting to pure defense-of-self has tangential casualties that cannot be avoided. No one enjoys this, but those very unfortunate civilian casualties in the Middle East are miniscule compared to 3000+ on a single September morning.

Are you aware of the thousands more Afghani and Iraqi civilians the U.S. military and some of its allies have killed compared to the less than 3000 civilians killed in New York?

Besides, to compare 1 loss of life to a 1000 is to diminish the meaning of that life. Maybe if we felt any loss as keenly as we felt the death of one close to us (or of our own "people"), human history would be a lot less bloody.

[Pentangeli]

All the best to Obama.

The days where Obama could be a success just from a speech are now over. His job now isn't about talking, its about getting it done. He has a lot of issues to attend to and a lot of promises (miracles) to keep.

Another great public speaker, Martin Luther King, famously said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Well I wonder if those who fiercly despise W.Bush will give Obama the same treatment should he match his predecessor's failings.

Interesting times await.

[The Postmaster General]

So wait... Why was America supplying box cutters to terrorists in the 80s?

[The Postmaster General]

Another great public speaker, Martin Luther King, famously said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Well I wonder if those who fiercly despise W.Bush will give Obama the same treatment should he match his predecessor's failings.


I don't think Bush got that much crap for being white. Maybe a little bit, but probably mostly by nut jobs.

[Pentangeli]

I don't think Bush got that much crap for being white. Maybe a little bit, but probably mostly by nut jobs.

You miss the point I was making. Bush's ethnicity and skin colour was never an issue in his election. Whereas a lot has been mentioned regarding Obama's ethnicity, both in the build up to the elections and since his election. I commented how it would be interesting to see the reaction toward Obama should he be guilty of similar failings, and if colour and ethnic origin will still be a factor as it has been up to now.

[The Postmaster General]

I don't think anyone has said he would impose good policies because of his skin color. The topic of his skin color has generally been separate in relation to his ability to perform the duties and make sound decisions.

[shoe1985]

I never looked at his skin color, I don't think it matters. To many people it does, but I honestly don't care. I look at his policies, and go by that when I vote. If Hilary had went up against McCain, I would have vote for her because of her policies.

[The Postmaster General]

Honestly I don't have a problem looking at his skin color, but I think it's a whole separate facet compared to how he does his job. It's all about whether it's a positive aspect or not. If people of the same color are going to feel less disenfranchised because of his color, that's cool by me. I think it goes deeper though, and that if he proves to be a good man, and sets a good example for everyone that's what matters. He could be the most inspirational person since the one legged child who pulled his family from a burning building while running a lemonade stand to pay his way through medical school and discovering the pill that is the ultimate aphrodisiac, but it won't matter if he turns out to be a total pud. I don't agree with the "we got one of our own" mentality, and that goes both ways because a lot of good ole boys said that exact same thing with Bush in office, except when skin color is the factor it's easier for people to make a point about it because it takes a lot less thought to see it. With that said though, I'm not going to pretend like race isn't important, especially to minorities who have felt slighted, but at the same time it's not the only thing nor the most important thing. I like Obama because he's seems very real in many ways. I liked Bush for the same thing. Beyond that, and what's most important though is how they do the job, and it was there I had different opinions on those two men being president. A lot of detractors like to make it seem like his supporters see it as either being one or the other, and it's not.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

You miss the point I was making. Bush's ethnicity and skin colour was never an issue in his election. Whereas a lot has been mentioned regarding Obama's ethnicity, both in the build up to the elections and since his election. I commented how it would be interesting to see the reaction toward Obama should he be guilty of similar failings, and if colour and ethnic origin will still be a factor as it has been up to now.

Obama didn't win on a wave of white liberal guilt. Don't quote King to support your unfounded statements.

[Pentangeli]

Obama didn't win on a wave of white liberal guilt.I did not write that Obama won on a "wave of white liberal guilt", nor do I think that is the case.

Don't quote King to support your unfounded statements.
Other than those who have been living under a rock for the past year, the rest of us will have witnessed the many comments regarding Obama's skin colour and ethnicity. Infact even those who have been living under a rock will have been aware of this. It really has been impossible to ignore.

In light of such superficial comments regarding Obama, I found it fitting to quote Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, and query whether Obama will be judged by the content of his character or if people will still make an issue of skin colour.

[someguy]

You miss the point I was making. Bush's ethnicity and skin colour was never an issue in his election. Whereas a lot has been mentioned regarding Obama's ethnicity, both in the build up to the elections and since his election.

You cannot be serious with this please god tell me you're not serious.

[The Heart Collector]

You miss the point I was making. Bush's ethnicity and skin colour was never an issue in his election. Whereas a lot has been mentioned regarding Obama's ethnicity, both in the build up to the elections and since his election. I commented how it would be interesting to see the reaction toward Obama should he be guilty of similar failings, and if colour and ethnic origin will still be a factor as it has been up to now.

All Presidents except Obama have been white. Therefore, there is nothing about Bush's race that is particularly interesting when compared to the presidents that came before him. Obama, on the other hand, is black. He does not fit into the pattern of presidents. He falls out of what is normal, therefore it gets reported.

You can't possibly be this dense.

[Pentangeli]

You cannot be serious with this please god tell me you're not serious.

That post is certainly an unproductive addition to this thread. And you haven't even specified what your problem is.

[Pentangeli]

All Presidents except Obama have been white. Therefore, there is nothing about Bush's race that is particularly interesting when compared to the presidents that came before him. Obama, on the other hand, is black. He does not fit into the pattern of presidents. He falls out of what is normal, therefore it gets reported.
Correct. I wrote nothing to the contrary. The part of the post to which you are referring, regarding Bush, was in reply to BubbaStrangeLove's post.

You can't possibly be this dense.
I'm sure there's no need for personal insults. Especially as the fault lies with your inability to follow the thread, specifically the conversation between myself and BubbaStrangeLove.

[Preston_79]

An argument is lost when you have to resort to name calling.

Same shit different thread.

[Vong]

EDIT: Nevermind

[Criminal Rock]

That post is certainly an unproductive addition to this thread. And you haven't even specified what your problem is.

Dude, look at the quote he posted, his problem is with those points... and by the way, I agree with Bubba, THC, and Someguy.

The only factor played into Obama's skin colour during the election has been the significance of his run for presidency being a black man who, at the time, actually had a chance to win, and of course afterwards, being the first black President of the United States. That's pretty much it...

Like many have said before, skin colour has nothing to do with the ability to lead and make decisions. So, to respond to when you suggested that it'd be "interesting" to see how events would play out, regarding the colour of Obama's skin and the people's opinion of him if he were to make Bush like mistakes... the colour of his skin wouldn't be a factor because skin colour has nothing to do with how one makes decisions. Just like how the colour of Bush's skin wasn't a factor when he was fucking shit up. It was his stupidity and ignorance which led to that.

Put it this way, any person who makes issue with the colour of Obama's skin if he were to fuck up as big as Bush, would be racist.. does that answer your question?

[The Heart Collector]

Let's put it another way.


Why would Bush's race be commented on? What about that could be spun into something newsworthy?

[Pentangeli]

Let's put it another way.


Why would Bush's race be commented on? What about that could be spun into something newsworthy?

You're still not getting it. I don't understand the difficulty, I mean it's all written down on the thread. Re-read the correspondence between myself and BubbaStrangeLove.

I have not stated that Bush's skin colour and, or ethnicty should be an issue. The points I have previously made have little to do with Bush.

The point I have made is that people have made an issue of Obama's skin colour and ethnicity prior to his election, and queried if the public opinion of him at the end of his tenure will still be affected by the man's skin colour and ethnicity. Example -- and here's where and why Bush was brought into this -- if Obama was as unsuccessful as Bush, will the public opinion of Obama be equal to that of Bush. Will people be more forgiving. Will others be quicker to sharpen their knives.

Will Obama skin colour and ethnicity still be affecting people's view of of him by the end of his tenure. That is the only issue i've raised on this thread.

[The Postmaster General]

The funny thing about it is that I get the sense that many people believe that Obama supporters just want "a brother calling the shots." In order to make their points, they bring up and drag out comments in regards to Obama's skin color. They focus on his skin color, and they speak ad infinitum how people only cared about his skin color.

Then the part I think is the punch line to that preposterous set-up, is that there were people who did in fact vote for Bush based on that same sort of thinking. That's why I brought up the concept of people being happy to have a "good ole boy" in the White House. Hell, many presidents have gotten a few votes for reasons just as superficial - he's a hippy like us, he's a war vet like us, he's a farmer like us, etc... The point is that this has never been brought up and made into such a big point as it has with people who are commenting on Obama being black. In some ways, it's a testament to the adage, "Can't a brother get a break?" Even when someone is on top like Obama is, criticism is being drawn revolving around him being black.

It's off-putting because I feel that anyone who is making a critical point about Obama's blackness getting him votes, without noting that many presidents have also received votes for superficial reasons, in many ways they are being more superficial and hallow than any person who voted for a president based on those reasons. I feel that way because whereas they can comment and criticize based on the obvious fact that Obama is black, they are unable to observe and note the superficial differences with all the former white presidents. By a process of deduction, you can render everything down and conclude that perhaps the real issue they have is that Obama is black.

You could, but I won't. Did Obama get some votes because he was black? Sure. Did he win because he was black? No, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be proof of this.

[Pentangeli]

Dude, look at the quote he posted, his problem is with those points
He quoted a post of mine which stated two facts:
(i) Bush's ethnicity was a non-issue (note: I didn't say it should be an issue). (ii) people have made an issue of Obama's ethnicity and skin colour, which is something the World is aware of.
There isn't anything to find fault with. Someguy's reply was unproductive, it failed to inform me what exactly upset him.

Put it this way, any person who makes issue with the colour of Obama's skin if he were to fuck up as big as Bush, would be racist.. does that answer your question?
No it doesn't answer my question. Its not a query which can be concluded by one person. I share your view, race simply isn't an issue in whether Obama deserves praise or contempt. Not everyone will share that view.

[The Postmaster General]

...facts:
(i) Bush's ethnicity was a non-issue

(ii) people have made an issue of Obama's ethnicity and skin colour, which is something the World is aware of.

Martin Luther King, famously said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Well I wonder if those who fiercly despise W.Bush will give Obama the same treatment should he match his predecessor's failings.



Quoted for relevance of perspective.

[Pentangeli]

Quoted for relevance of perspective.

You say that, but you seemingly can't read the thread properly. The first two quotes you've posted have nothing to do with the third quote, instead they were referring to what Someguy had quoted and reacted to.

Just a word of advice, if any of you genuinely wish to have a serious debate, don't provide quotes which are out of context, or exhibit an inability to read the thread.

[The Postmaster General]

Just a word of advice, I was making the point that you were the first one to bring up Obama's race as an issue.

[Reigh Kaufman]

You say that, but you seemingly can't read the thread properly. The first two quotes you've posted have nothing to do with the third quote, instead they were referring to what Someguy had quoted and reacted to.

Just a word of advice, if any of you genuinely wish to have a serious debate, don't provide quotes which are out of context, or exhibit an inability to read the thread.

Guy, I've read the whole thread and you are obviously an intelligent poster. I like that about new people.

But...

You are completely disorganised and it no longer sounds like you are making a valid argument; instead it sounds like you are defending the untenable position that you have put yourself in.

I've yet to see Bubba deliberately undermine anyone's point of view for the sake of making his voice louder than anyone else.

Nothing you have said since Someguy's post has retained your arguments credibility. You retract and retrieve and renounce points to suit yourself.

I agree with you on several points, but mostly I'm not sure what you believe anymore.

[Pentangeli]

Just a word of advice, I was making the point that you were the first one to bring up Obama's race as an issue.

When I wrote that Bush's ethncitiy was a non-issue and Obama's ethnicity was an issue, I was referring to World-wide public opinion and not this little thread.

The public have made an issue of Obama's skin colour. That is a fact. Its understandable that the issue was made, its a historic moment. I queried whether it would still be an issue by the end of his tenure, and affect the way the public view him.

Nothing major here. Yet for some reason there's a few posters who are unable to read properly, or have deliberately quoted my statements out of context.

[The Postmaster General]

Sorry I was gone. I've been watching BET to see if there's any current Obama news. Did I miss anything here? Oh, hey Reigh. Your cat had a hair ball this morning. I cleaned it up, yo!

[The Postmaster General]

When I wrote that Bush's ethncitiy was a non-issue and Obama's ethnicity was an issue, I was referring to World-wide public opinion and not this little thread.

The public have made an issue of Obama's skin colour. That is a fact. Its understandable that the issue was made, its a historic moment. I queried whether it would still be an issue by the end of his tenure, and affect the way the public view him.

Nothing major here. Yet for some reason there's a few posters who are unable to read properly, or have deliberately quoted my statements out of context.



I don't think Obama's race is really an issue for you, no more than I feel it's an issue for the majority public that voted him in. Yes, the media likes to play things up and the fact that Obama is the first black president is a story that's of interest to most people. Others have commented on this story as a means to undermine and criticize Obama. Do I feel that Obama's race is an issue to you? No. I do, though, believe you are buying into the fanfare that it is an issue for the majority public that voted for him.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned early on that I had a problem with people who say Bush only got voted in because he was a "good ole boy." That statement was probably most pushed by non-Americans criticizing our presidential lineage, and the stereotype of the John Wayne gun in hand American. I didn't feel it was fair then and I don't feel it's fair now.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Sorry I was gone. I've been watching BET to see if there's any current Obama news. Did I miss anything here? Oh, hey Reigh. Your cat had a hair ball this morning. I cleaned it up, yo!

It wasn't a hair ball, Bubba. It was a poor little mouse's corpse. The cat brought me the head as a "gift". Why do they do that? Almost makes me wish I hadn't agreed to babysit my next door neighbours pets whilst they were away on holiday.

They are gonna be pissed...

[Pentangeli]

Nothing you have said since Someguy's post has retained your arguments credibility. You retract and retrieve and renounce points to suit yourself.

Since the last few posts I haven't been attempting to argue my original points. Instead i've been correcting those who have taken statements out of context. I've concluded that some are doing this because they're genuinely illiterate, others are doing this purely out of the pleasure of believing that it infuriates me.

[The Postmaster General]

Since the last few posts I haven't been attempting to argue my original points. Instead i've been correcting those who have taken statements out of context. I've concluded that some are doing this because they're genuinely illiterate, others are doing this purely out of the pleasure of believing that it infuriates me.


I don't fall into either category for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

Might I suggest that I'm under the impression that you may not be getting the points you think you are getting. I could go back and outline how I'm arriving at that conclusion, but knowing you are intelligent and literate, I think it makes more sense that you can see this for yourself.

That said, I apologize if I'm not able to articulate the points I'm trying to make. From the get-go, my only MO has been in questioning why Obama's race is being made an issue of in this thread.




It wasn't a hair ball, Bubba. It was a poor little mouse's corpse. The cat brought me the head as a "gift". Why do they do that? Almost makes me wish I hadn't agreed to babysit my next door neighbours pets whilst they were away on holiday.

They are gonna be pissed...


Oh, that explains the taste.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Since the last few posts I haven't been attempting to argue my original points. Instead i've been correcting those who have taken statements out of context. I've concluded that some are doing this because they're genuinely illiterate, others are doing this purely out of the pleasure of believing that it infuriates me.

Is it worth it? You have been erudite and courteous. Do you really care what some dude in Azerbijan thinks?

You have made your point of view known, and 50% will agree with you and 50% will not.

This is how it is in the forum. You won't convert anyone - and your opinion will be duly noted.

[The Postmaster General]

I equate it to playing Tetris.

[Pentangeli]

I do, though, believe you are buying into the fanfare that it is an issue for the majority public that voted for him.
I don't know why you've lept to that belief, but you're very much mistaken. I don't know the reasons why people voted, but I like to think that Obama won because he was the best candidate. He was best the democrats had to offer, and eventually went up against a Republican geriatric who posed the risk -- in the event of his death -- of passing the baton to Palin. But race and skin colour were still a big issue, there's no getting round that fact.

[Pentangeli]

Is it worth it? You have been erudite and courteous. Do you really care what some dude in Azerbijan thinks?

You have made your point of view known, and 50% will agree with you and 50% will not.

This is how it is in the forum. You won't convert anyone - and your opinion will be duly noted.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. The internet isn't really the place to achieve that. No, i'm strangely in agreement with Bubba, it's like tetris, boring but addictive

[The Postmaster General]

Yes, generally when we jump to conclusions we can be mistaken, whether that conclusion is one like you just corrected, or it is the conclusion that others are illiterate or board flammers as you jumped to.

I never disagreed that it is an issue. My initial statement was that it is an issue secondary to why he was voted into office. In addition to that, I did question why you were bringing up this topic (his race) in this thread, as reading through the thread, it was incongruous to the flow of the discussion. Not out of line, but seemingly out of left field, perhaps appearing that your intent was to make an issue out of his race where it wasn't one (this thread).

Something else to add to him winning may also be 8 years of Bushurn out, and the fact that many felt McCain went from a ardent man with deep convictions to someone who appeared to be pandering to get Republican votes.

[Pentangeli]

Yes, generally when we jump to conclusions we can be mistaken, whether that conclusion is one like you just corrected, or it is the conclusion that others are illiterate or board flammers
The conclusion is accurate. There isn't an alternative to explain why people would take a quote out of context. There were those who simply couldn't read the thread, and those who were deliberately twisting things into something more sinister.

[Preston_79]

The conclusion is accurate. There isn't an alternative to explain why people would take a quote out of context. There were those who simply couldn't read the thread, and those who were deliberately twisting things into something more sinister.

That's what you do when your argument is to weak to stand on it's own.

[The Postmaster General]

The conclusion is accurate.

Well, you jumped to that conclusion and it is not accurate, as I fit into neither of the reasons you gave and I showed why that was the case. If you wish to refute my reasons, please do, but reiterating your conclusions isn't a very literate-pleasing course of action for those who wish to communicate amicably.

There isn't an alternative to explain why people would take a quote out of context.

I gave a reason, that reason was that you seemed to miss the point that was being presented. Ironically, with you calling people missing your point illiterate, you also responded to my point by taking one of my quotes out of context while not responding to these reasons I've outlined for you.

Another reason might be for brevity purposes, which seems to be the case with you having quoted one of my points separate from the entirety of my post in your response (the one I'm replying to).

There were those who simply couldn't read the thread, and those who were deliberately twisting things into something more sinister.

Twisting into something more sinister? Aren't you claiming that your board-peers are either illiterate or trolls?

[Pentangeli]

I gave a reason, that reason was that you seemed to miss the point that was being presented. Ironically, with you calling people missing your point illiterate, you also responded to my point by taking one of my quotes out of context while not responding to these reasons I've outlined for you.

Another reason might be for brevity purposes, which seems to be the case with you having quoted one of my points separate from the entirety of my post in your response (the one I'm replying to).

No, i'm sorry but that just isn't what's happened. There's a big difference between focusing on an single point someone has made and extracting a section in a manner where the meaning is lost. For someone to perform the latter, it is down to either an inability to understand or follow the conversation or it's done deliberately.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Heh - I've been to bed, cured my hangover, cleaned the house for my missus getting back from a conference, written and posted a reference for one of my pupils, and had breakfast and lunch....

...and this is still going from last night.

Sometimes I just love this place so much. I wish I knew how to quit it.;)

[Pentangeli]

That's what you do when your argument is to weak to stand on it's own.

Ah, I see. That's a shame, I was hoping for a more mature discussion. And not the juvenile bickering which some have implemented, unfortunately dragging me down to their level at times. Pity.

[Pentangeli]

Heh - I've been to bed, cured my hangover, cleaned the house for my missus getting back from a conference, written and posted a reference for one of my pupils, and had breakfast and lunch....

...and this is still going from last night.

Sometimes I just love this place so much. I wish I knew how to quit it.;)

A fellow Brit I presume? what do you teach, if you don't mind me asking?

[Reigh Kaufman]

English.

Not that you would guess from my semi-literate posts.

:p

[Pentangeli]

;) Touché.

[Badbird]

I'm sure that everyone has seen that Rush and Fox News are up to their old tricks again, going full Bill Clinton on Obama.

So much for that notion of "If you don't support the President no matter what, then you are un-American."

[Homyrrh]

I'm sure that everyone has seen that Rush and Fox News are up to their old tricks again, going full Bill Clinton on Obama.

So much for that notion of "If you don't support the President no matter what, then you are un-American."
...ror the notion that only a real American can criticize and be overly discerning toward their country. It's cyclical dude...the whole two-party thing, and Rush and FOX, like any media outlet, should rightfully be conderned more about their ratings.

[Criminal Rock]

...The point I have made is that people have made an issue of Obama's skin colour and ethnicity prior to his election, and queried if the public opinion of him at the end of his tenure will still be affected by the man's skin colour and ethnicity. Example -- and here's where and why Bush was brought into this -- if Obama was as unsuccessful as Bush, will the public opinion of Obama be equal to that of Bush. Will people be more forgiving. Will others be quicker to sharpen their knives.

Will Obama skin colour and ethnicity still be affecting people's view of of him by the end of his tenure. That is the only issue i've raised on this thread.

Personally, I am still bemused as to why you raised queries about Obama's race concerning theoretical mistakes in the first place. It is obvious, and also a fact, that anyone who would fault or attribute Obama's race regarding his "failures", would merit racism; intolerance of another's ethnic origin. They would be exploiting his "failures" to make jabs at the colour of Obama's skin, and anyone who exploits his race would be scorned by any and every credible news agency around the world, along with Obama and his "fuckups". From Fox News to MSNBC to the BBC.

If Obama were to fail as a President, he would be ridiculed and remembered for his failures as one, just like Bush. Obviously, die hard supporters will defend him as his dogmatic critics will hate him... for whatever reason... but anyone who factors in his black skin to explain his failures as President would be a racist.

No it doesn't answer my question. Its not a query which can be concluded by one person. I share your view, race simply isn't an issue in whether Obama deserves praise or contempt. Not everyone will share that view.

I don't understand how it isn't the answer to your question, anyone who shares the opposing view is not agreeing with the truth, i.e. terms and definitions, the facts. This isn't a matter of opinion in my eyes, whether or not exploiting Obama's race to explain his "shortcomings" is racist.

[Pentangeli]

I don't understand how it isn't the answer to your question, anyone who shares the opposing view is not agreeing with the truth, i.e. terms and definitions, the facts. This isn't a matter of opinion in my eyes, whether or not exploiting Obama's race to explain his "shortcomings" is racist.

Of course it would be racist if the public treated Obama differently. I've never said anything to the contrary. I know this, i'm glad you and others here know this. But I have my suspicions that some people will be more forgiving to Obama than they were to his predecessors, and others will be more scornful. Either way both would be examples of racism. Hopefully my suspicions will be proved wrong, but only time will tell.

The query I raised was regarding public opinion of Obama at the end of his tenure, and for that reason my query will only be concluded once his tenure is over.

Unfortunately I've felt the need to correct those who have misread my posts and others who have for whatever reason chosen to taken my comments out of context. The consequence is that the thread has slightly veered off the rails. For my part in that I apologie to the creator of this thread.

[Criminal Rock]

Of course it would be racist if the public treated Obama differently. I've never said anything to the contrary. I know this, i'm glad you and others here know this. But I have my suspicions that some people will be more forgiving to Obama than they were to his predecessors, and others will be more scornful. Either way both would be examples of racism. Hopefully my suspicions will be proved wrong, but only time will tell.

And I never implied you didn't agree with anything I had said.

I am certain there are supporters who would be more pardoning, nevertheless, the greater part of those who voted him into office do not see the President as an infallible figure. In fact, I am quite sure that is an extremely small group of people. Obama's critics, more or less, have issues with his Liberal philosophies as opposed to his race, and his racist opposition are also in the minority (Though, much larger than their opposites). I suppose it could be interesting to see those people try to defend or attack Obama in the vein of racism if he were to make a mistake, but only interesting enough to laugh at them and point out their ignorance. In any hypothetical situation, I don't see how racism, or even the issue of race, would be any different or treated differently than it is now. Especially here in America. I do not have my suspicions that if Obama were to make a mistake, that any credible amount of people would use his race as an excuse, or as a reason for his doings.

[The Postmaster General]

No, i'm sorry but that just isn't what's happened.

What didn't happen?

This is what you quoted from me: (1)I gave a reason, that reason was that you seemed to miss the point that was being presented. Ironically, with you calling people missing your point illiterate, (2)you also responded to my point by taking one of my quotes out of context while not responding to these reasons I've outlined for you.

(3)Another reason might be for brevity purposes, which seems to be the case with you having quoted one of my points separate from the entirety of my post in your response (the one I'm replying to).


What you are responding to, and said didn't happen is:

1) You missed a point I was presenting. --- If that didn't happen, tell me what my point was.

2) You are taking my points by taking one sampling of my post, and responding to that, instead of addressing the summary of what I'm outlining. What I am outlining would be the point I am saying you are missing in "1"

3) If not "2", then perhaps you are only summarizing the gist of my post as a response

Additionally, I believe "1" still holds true because you haven't said anything congruous to the point I am attempting to make (and the point others, who you are calling illiterate, have been able to comprehend.)

There's a big difference between focusing on an single point someone has made and extracting a section in a manner where the meaning is lost.

The first half of what I am quoting is what I have said in #3, the second half is the other option I gave in #2. You are saying I am wrong, then restating what I just said.

For someone to perform the latter, it is down to either an inability to understand or follow the conversation or it's done deliberately.

It's not just those two things, it is also what I outlined in "1", which is a point was missed, or in other words, there is a miscommunication. You have just demonstrated an example of a miscommunication, as you are not getting the points I have been making. This can be from either my error, or your error, or it could be many other variety of things, such as misperceptions, preconceptions, and so on and so on.

In my initial post, the one that got you hell bent on your tirade of your peers being either illiterate or flammers, nothing was taken out of context. I quoted you entirely in context under the point that you are you alone are the first person in this thread to make an issue out of Obama's race. Just because you didn't say all of those things in on post doesn't mean that you believed one of your points when making one post, but didn't believe another one of those things when making a second post.

If one day you are talking about the sky and say you like the color blue, then another day you are talking about modes of transportation and say you like cars, and I said you like blue cars. Then you ask why, and I quote you from the previous comments you made, that is not taking you out of context, that is building a conclusion based on the sum of things you've said, which is what I have done.

The conclusion I made isn't even difficult to prove because it is right there, and that conclusion was that you are the one who has first made an issue of his race. Not in the world, no, but in the thread yes. You have agreed with this, but for some reason you are refusing to concede that the way I quoted you was neither an inability to understand what you were saying, nor was it an attempt to cause you grief --- Yet you have failed to prove that I was wrong in making the point that you were the first to bring up Obama's race as an issue in this thread, which is the only way you will be able to show that I was quoting you out of context.

I have no problem saying that you are right and that sometimes people would misquote someone as an attempt to aggravate, or as a failure to understand, but that isn't what happened in my response in which you accused me of such, as I wasn't misquoting you I was using your quotes in the exact context I you used them in, and that context was to validate a point that... come on and say it with me --- You were the one bringing up Obama's race as an issue.

There is a whole 'nother discussion we could be having about the validity in saying that Obama's race is a factor for other people, but for some reason you want to run with the illiterate flammer argument, and I don't get that because as others who are taking the opportunity to hold this discussion with you, it appears to be beneath your abilities as a constructive poster. Like Reigh, I don't totally disagree with things you have said, but I feel you are being somewhat scattershot in the way you are choosing to present it.



And since Reigh mentioned the weirdness of walking into this thread, I went into work last night on about 6 hours of sleep over the previous 48 hours, and have since been up, as I stayed at work (overnight shift) only to realize I had to administer several drug tests to explain the weirdness that was occurring from 12am - 4am (before I was able to relax and come on the boards) After the sinisterness of that, I went to Party City to get balloons, sunglasses, and more necklaces. Then home where I slept for 10 minutes only to wake up and slam an energy drink, eat more pain medication (due to kidney stones), then go and cohost a preschoolers birthday party where there were about 15 kids and a bunch of serious looking parents I'd never met, then having to entertain everyone (better than serving and cooking), then had to administer first aid to a 60 year old woman who slipped on the ice in front of the clubhouse we rented, and then came home to set up a kick-ass transformers animated tent in which I should have gone to sleep in with the 3 year old, but instead got some take out Chinese food (mmm spicy chicken) and am now eating that and staring at the 3 bottles of champaign next to my monitor, thinking if I go to bed now I'll screw up the whole sleep cycle... But damnit, you know. These boards are fun, and I hear that if we get to level 12, that the boards will stop changing color, so I'm game!

In summary, sorry if I come off as convoluted.

[Criminal Rock]

"If one day you are talking about the sky and say you like the color blue, then another day you are talking about modes of transportation and say you like cars, and I said you like blue cars. Then you ask why, and I quote you from the previous comments you made, that is not taking you out of context, that is building a conclusion based on the sum of things you've said, which is what I have done."

Word.

[shoe1985]

Rush is such an idiot. All he did for the last 8 years was say we should not disrespect our President because it is unamerican, now it is ok? Then we get these idiots that respect him, and agree with him now and before. If Obama was a Republican, I wonder how different the opinions of these people would change?

[Homyrrh]

Rush is such an idiot.
Yeah...a very RICH idiot.

[The Postmaster General]

The most I ever respected Rush was when I found out he had a Vicodin addiction, but as soon as I found out, it was taken away and once again he was as 2-dimensional as the lines on the road toward unity.

[Criminal Rock]

Yeah...a very RICH idiot.

But still an idiot nonetheless...

[Homyrrh]

But still an idiot nonetheless...
No, no, no, no, no...I think you don't have a grasp of "idiot". Mr. Limbaugh has his John Hancock on a $400 million ;) What wouldn't you say for that much? Truthfully...

[The Postmaster General]

No, no, no, no, no...I think you don't have a grasp of "idiot". Mr. Limbaugh has his John Hancock on a $400 million ;) What wouldn't you say for that much? Truthfully...


I see what you are saying, but these people who sue and get millions for things like burning their mouth on coffee, or slipping on a wet floor aren't exactly smart in the classic sense of the world. Lack of idiocy isn't synonymous with being exploitive.

[Homyrrh]

I see what you are saying, but these people who sue and get millions for things like burning their mouth on coffee, or slipping on a wet floor aren't exactly smart in the classic sense of the world. Lack of idiocy isn't synonymous with being exploitive.
Amassing a syndicated empire worth $400 million is not a simplistic, rudimentary task. This is a man deeply struck with an ability to pander and entertain and promote. I'd take his spot for $400 million. Sure, Leftward America prays ill upon me, but that's worth nothing at the feet of nine digits and an unwavering fan base comprised of the silent majority.

[The Postmaster General]

Amassing a syndicated empire worth $400 million is not a simplistic, rudimentary task. This is a man deeply struck with an ability to pander and entertain and promote. I'd take his spot for $400 million. Sure, Leftward America prays ill upon me, but that's worth nothing at the feet of nine digits and an unwavering fan base comprised of the silent majority.


Well experiencing pain isn't exactly a walk in the park. Just ask Rush.

[Criminal Rock]

No, no, no, no, no...I think you don't have a grasp of "idiot". Mr. Limbaugh has his John Hancock on a $400 million ;) What wouldn't you say for that much? Truthfully...

No, no, no, no, no... I am pretty sure I "grasp" the concept of the term idiot in reference to a man who once claimed that Michael J. Fox was "exaggerating" the effects of his disease. A man who calls Barrack Obama a "magic negro" in a pathetic attempt to explain why people find him so fascinating. A man who says our concern over the environment is a bunch of "balderdash" and that volcanoes do more harm to our ozone layer than we do in another pathetic attempt to explain global warming.

The guy is fucking retarded, homyrrh. As are his followers for giving him the wealth he has...

[Homyrrh]

No, no, no, no, no... I am pretty sure I "grasp" the concept of the term idiot in reference to a man who once claimed that Michael J. Fox was "exaggerating" the effects of his disease. A man who calls Barrack Obama a "magic negro" in a pathetic attempt to explain why people find him so fascinating. A man who says our concern over the environment is a bunch of "balderdash" and that volcanoes do more harm to our ozone layer than we do in another pathetic attempt to explain global warming.

The guy is fucking retarded, homyrrh. As are his followers for giving him the wealth he has...
This post is entirely out-of-line, TMJ. Regardless of whether you make a specific inference that me or any other JoBlo user is "fucking retarded", replying to what I had said in good humor with such wrath is completely inappropriate. I feel Al Gore is a windbag, Barack Obama is a farce and MSNBC/NY Times has less objectiveness than the National Enquirer, but I call neither them nor their denizens "fucking retards".

[Cop No. 633]

Is it really that out of line? He never pointed anybody out in this thread. I'm sorry, but I also think many Americans are fucking idiots. Should I apologize for believing this to be so? If people can actually listen to this guy jabber on for hours, I think they really are in need of finding a good book to read* or a shrink.


*One not by Sean Hannity or Anne Coulter.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

This post is entirely out-of-line, TMJ. Regardless of whether you make a specific inference that me or any other JoBlo user is "fucking retarded", replying to what I had said in good humor with such wrath is completely inappropriate. I feel Al Gore is a windbag, Barack Obama is a farce and MSNBC/NY Times has less objectiveness than the National Enquirer, but I call neither them nor their denizens "fucking retards".

But no one is stopping you from doing so.

[Homyrrh]

But no one is stopping you from doing so.
Indeed, but a sense of decency often makes a profound case against it. That can't be an ideal metric by which to measure something either. Maybe it's just me.

[Preston_79]

This post is entirely out-of-line, TMJ. Regardless of whether you make a specific inference that me or any other JoBlo user is "fucking retarded", replying to what I had said in good humor with such wrath is completely inappropriate. I feel Al Gore is a windbag, Barack Obama is a farce and MSNBC/NY Times has less objectiveness than the National Enquirer, but I call neither them nor their denizens "fucking retards".

You're just too sensible for the political forum. It's belittling.

[Vong]

I feel Al Gore is a windbag, Barack Obama is a farce and MSNBC/NY Times has less objectiveness than the National Enquirer

You probably believe that George W. Bush was made president because his god wanted him to be, right? Or that Bush genuinely won the presidency in 2000?

[Homyrrh]

You probably believe that George W. Bush was made president because his god wanted him to be, right? Or that Bush genuinely won the presidency in 2000?
Perhaps not "his god" but it was the ultimate destiny that unfolded; indeed, as my chain of logic, because (A) George W. Bush became the president and (B) there exists an omnipotent Supreme Being (not W.), it was how the latter intended human history to unfold. As was the French Revolution and Roe v. Wade and the establishment of gay marriage and Barack Obama's presidency. Everything happens for a reason. Again, if we want to go theological...

I'm not going to comment on the 2000 election; I have an ignorance to it. But with my newfound fascinated listener, I also condemn much of the environmental movement (as a matter of priority at least), abortion in any instance that doens't threaten a woman's life, and nine of any ten socialist programs and am fervently capitalistic. But, economically speaking at least, I do not advocate for the death penalty or the prevention of homosexual marriage (politically at least).

And perhaps most relevant, I do not like Barack Obama as an individual or a politician or even understand the quiver-at-the-knees effect, but, as both an American citizen and a cadet, I rightfully choose to support him like I did his predecessors, regardless of their political core (yet obviously reserve the right to criticism).

I don't enjoy long walks on the beach, and can't stand canines under 60 lbs.

[Preston_79]

Tom Daschle withdraws his nomination as Obama's health and human services secretary. Does this mean the IRS will give him back his 140,000?

I'm sure we can find another tax evader to take his place.

[Homyrrh]

Tom Daschle withdraws his nomination as Obama's health and human services secretary. Does this mean the IRS will give him back his 140,000?

I'm sure we can find another tax evader to take his place.
Yeah, I saw that Obama nominated a Republican senator for a post today (was in the NY Times this morning) in the interest of bipartisanship...then further read that the door is now open for that state's Democratic governor to nominate the 60th Democratic senator to take his place.

Hooray ethics reform and bipartisanship. Tax evaders, lobbyists, aisle-reaching with an agenda...

EDIT: Linkage (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/04gregg.html?ref=politics)

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I seriously doubt that Obama would give a Republican a crucial cabinet position just so he can get another Democratic Senator. I swear, your posts get more and more deluded.

[Homyrrh]

I seriously doubt that Obama would give a Republican a crucial cabinet position just so he can get another Democratic Senator. I swear, your posts get more and more deluded.
Hell, I don't know what you're talking about. I'd do it for my party in a heartbeat, GOP, Democrat or otherwise. But Obama wouldn't, of course ;)

[Preston_79]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story


I suspected this would happen. He pandered to the left talking about change, but now he's in office and the reality is setting in. I heard much bickering among my lefty friends in regards to secret flights moving prisoners to undisclosed locations where they were tortured and were short sighted enough to blame Bush and his administration. Glad to see Obama carrying on with the tradition.....minus the torture.

[Homyrrh]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story


I suspected this would happen. He pandered to the left talking about change, but now he's in office and the reality is setting in. I heard much bickering among my lefty friends in regards to secret flights moving prisoners to undisclosed locations where they were tortured and were short sighted enough to blame Bush and his administration. Glad to see Obama carrying on with the tradition.....minus the torture.
Yeah, but I can't blame him. I'd be John Hancocking a rendition EO if we were warring with teorrorist organizations.

[QUENTIN]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story


I suspected this would happen. He pandered to the left talking about change, but now he's in office and the reality is setting in. I heard much bickering among my lefty friends in regards to secret flights moving prisoners to undisclosed locations where they were tortured and were short sighted enough to blame Bush and his administration. Glad to see Obama carrying on with the tradition.....minus the torture.

This:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/02/renditions/index.html

Is an invaluable response to that that explains a lot of the reasons this is not at all the case.

Chief among them are that the extraordinary renditions of people tried for no crime to a black site to be tortured by foreign agents is very different than the extraordinary rendition of people already convicted in absentia by US courts to the US or victim country to face the consequences of their crimes in "public" jail is very, very different.

That doesn't mean rendition at all is a good idea, but it may be, and the manner in which it is ordered and executed can make all the difference.

Obama is in no way "continuing the Bush rendition program", he may or may not be continuing the Clinton rendition program, or implementing it in an entirely new way. But requiring an individual is actually guilty under a court of law and putting them in jail, not a suspect sent to a torture chamber, is nothing like what we've been experiencing and what most of those with consciences, humanitarian concern, and a sense of justice have been complaining about.

The "If we know Bin Laden is..." and "If they know Bush is..." hypothetical posed are also worth considering when thinking about the issue.

[Homyrrh]

That doesn't mean rendition at all is a good idea, but it may be...

Victory is mine. ;)

[QUENTIN]

Very relevant, important piece on the issue from one of the very few valuable voices on terrorism to come from the Bush WH, Richard Clarke:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/01/29/the_confusion_over_renditions/

The Confusion over Renditions
By Richard Clarke


PRESIDENT OBAMA'S order to close the Guantanamo prison provoked comments from the right about the risks of bringing terrorist prisoners to the United States. His order banning torture, but not outlawing "extraordinary renditions," caused some on the left to complain. Both groups of critics, though, either overlook relevant parts of recent history or simply get that history wrong.

Before George W. Bush, there was no real question about what the United States should do with people who broke American anti-terror laws. It did not matter whether they were arrested in the United States or overseas. In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for example, one suspect, Muhammad Salameh, was caught in New Jersey. Another, Ramzi Yousef, was caught in Pakistan. Upon arrest, both were given their Miranda rights, arraigned before a US magistrate, given a free lawyer appointed by the court, tried and convicted before a jury, and sentenced to the "Supermax" prison in Florence, Colo.

Nor did it matter whether terror suspects broke American law in the United States or abroad. The laws that make terrorist violence directed at Americans a crime also provide "extraterritorial jurisdiction," meaning the United States can try someone for such acts even if the crimes did not occur domestically. Mohammed Sadeek Odeh, who bombed the US embassy in Kenya, was arrested in Pakistan, returned to the United States, placed into the US justice system, afforded all the rights as an accused criminal, convicted, and is also now in Supermax.

Even in cases where the terrorist act was planned but not perpetrated, criminals were arrested and processed in federal courts. The so-called "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdul Rahman, was accused of plotting to bomb the United Nations, tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey, and other iconic facilities. He too was convicted and placed in that same Colorado prison.

These examples demonstrate three things. First, the US criminal justice system has a history of successfully prosecuting terrorism cases and can continue doing so. There simply was no need for the special "kangaroo courts" created by the Bush administration.

Second, convicted terrorists have for some time resided at Supermax in Florence, Colo. Yet, as its mayor says, the town is "a great place to shop, stay, and visit," and has a low crime rate. Residents of Colorado are not bothered by the detention of these criminals. There has never been an escape by any of the terrorist prisoners.

Third, the return to the United States of Yousef and Odeh were "renditions" as defined by a directive from the first President Bush. Although all renditions have become controversial, these examples did not involve dragging criminals to a third country for torture or interrogation, nor did they violate US law or human rights. In these cases, the country in which the criminals were arrested waived their own extradition process and handed them over to US officials on the guarantee that they would be brought to the United States and afforded the same rights of the accused in the US justice system. The Supreme Court has even ruled that renditions occurring without the cooperation of the nation of arrest are legal if the accused is expeditiously brought into the US justice system.

It may happen again that the United States can only successfully arrest a suspect abroad if it fails to inform authorities in the country where the criminal is hiding. The United States once told the government of Qatar about an indicted criminal whom it sought and who was hiding in Doha. Almost immediately, the criminal fled, no doubt tipped off by someone in the Qatari government. That criminal was Khalid Shiekh Mohammad. Had he been arrested and brought back to stand trial, he may not have become the ringleader of the 2001 attacks, and 9/11 may have never happened. Thus, while wisely banning US involvement in torture, Obama was also prudent not to ban all renditions.

The prosecution in the US justice system of terrorism suspects and placing those convicted into prisons in the United States proved workable before the Bush administration. And it need not be something to fear in the future.

Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism adviser to former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, is author of "Against All Enemies" and "Your Government Failed You."


Under conditions in which the host country voluntarily foregos its formal extradition process on the conditions of a US trial that affords the accused with the most basic of legal rights, I think rendition is not only fine but a good idea.

The involuntary or surprise invasion of a sovereign country to kidnap someone Clarke starts to talk about at the end is where it gets into potentially very risky territory, but it's worth thinking about and discussing.

But that's the necessary limit on rendition, it must be legal, the accused must be brought to the US and housed in US (Supermax) prisons. The US justice and penal system has already proven it can handle dangerous terrorists without a problem. No new, extrajudicial court system is necessary, no torture, no loss of ethical standards and the streets are still safe.

[QUENTIN]

So Obama failed today about as thoroughly as imaginable on this first big test of how he'll approach government accountability and transparency. The absurd position taken, exactly and explicitly the same as the one adopted by the Bush DOJ, is all the more unreasonable because the things it served to protect -torture and lawless extraordinary rendition to torture sites- were banned by the new administration last week.

Without a full reversal on this issue, Obama has totally lost the modicum of support he'd garnered from me and far more importantly planted himself firmly in the war criminals camp. He now undeniably owns what happened to these men and bears the responsibility.


Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/index.html)

Two weeks ago, I interviewed the ACLU's Ben Wizner, counsel to 5 individuals suing the subsidiary of Boeing (Jeppesen) which had arranged the Bush administration's rendition program, under which those 5 plaintiffs had been abducted, sent to other countries and brutally tortured. Today the Obama administration was required to file with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its position in this case -- i.e., whether it would continue the Bush administration's abusive reliance on the "state secrets" privilege to prevent courts from ruling on such matters, or whether they would adhere to Obama's previous claims about his beliefs on "state secrets" by withdrawing that position and allowing these victims their day in court.

Yesterday, enthusiastic Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan wrote about this case: "Tomorrow in a federal court hearing in San Francisco, we'll find out if the Obama administration intends to keep the evidence as secret as the Bush administration did." As I wrote after interviewing Wizner two weeks ago: "This is the first real test of the authenticity of Obama's commitment to reverse the abuses of executive power over the last eight years." Today, the Obama administration failed that test -- resoundingly and disgracefully:

Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.

The ACLU's Wizner said this:

We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.


Continue, with links and sources... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/index.html

[shoe1985]

There are some things that should be kept behind closed doors. We can sit here and say everything should be out in the open, but that is BS.

As for President Obama's address tonight, I thought he did very well. He explained his reasoning for certain things in the bill very well. I can't wait to see how Fox News rips this to shreds. I tried watching Glen Beck today, and that guy is an idiot.

[QUENTIN]

There are some things that should be kept behind closed doors. We can sit here and say everything should be out in the open, but that is BS.

.

Do you understand this case and the issue at hand? It seems from that comment that you don't. No confidential, national security secrets would be revealed by allowing this to go to trial. The misapplication of "state secrets" is to entirely prevent the courts from hearing the case so that the government and Boeing cannot be held accountable for actions that are already out in the open and well documented.

The details of this case, who all of the principals being accused of wrongdoing are, and exactly what they did has now appeared in extensive international media coverage. The cat is out of the bag and has been reported on several times in The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, BBC, etc. Courts in Sweden have already heard the case including all pertinent details. This has nothing to do with secrets being revealed and everything to do with protecting those who broke the law from facing the consequences of those actions.

If there were secrets that needed to remain secret, the Obama DOJ could specify that elements of the case were national security secrets and keep those sealed while allowing other elements already widely disseminated and in the public record to be admitted. There aren't even any such secrets though, this is just an attempt to keep the entire case from ever being heard in the US.

However entirely accurate or completely wrongheaded your empty, complacent justification for the kind of government secrecy and opacity that Obama has rallied against for the past several years and promised to eradicate is, it has no bearing on this issue and is a relative non-sequitir.

From the article I posted:

What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the "state secrets" privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope. Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized if courts examine the Bush administration's rendition and torture programs -- even though (a) the rendition and torture programs have been written about extensively in the public record; (b) numerous other countries have investigated exactly these allegations; and (c) other countries have provided judicial forums in which these same victims could obtain relief. As Wizner (of the ACLU) said:

For one thing, the idea you alluded to, the facts of this story are absolutely well-known, have been the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post, are in books, and all of these stories are based on CIA and other government sources, that essentially said, well, in this case we got the wrong guy. So the position of the Bush administration, accepted by conservative judges in that case, really the only place in the world where Khalid El-Masri's case could not be discussed was in a federal courtroom. Everywhere else it could be discussed without harm to the nation, but in a federal court before a federal judge there, all kinds of terrible things could happen.

[The Postmaster General]

Watching the conference, I just appreciate how he makes an effort to communicate to the people instead of having the attitude that he's above that, which is what we've had the previous 8 years.

[shoe1985]

Will anything happen to Bush? No.
Will anyone face consequences for their actions? No.

Am I going to sit here and say what the last administration did was right? No, but nothing will come of it.

I gave President Bush time to put his policies in place, and not criticize him until a few years down the road. Do I agree with what he did? No.

Will every decision President Obama make be popular? Of course not, and this is probably not going to be a popular one.

We can implement as many torture laws we want, the sad fact is torture will always exist.

Obama stated tonight that there will be a website that will say were every dime of our money will go too. This is what I want to know. This is why I voted for him.

If you want to know everything, it won't happen, never will happen. Obama may open things up more to the public, but to believe everything is just stupid.

This is just my opinion, of course. People expect different things out of their leaders.

[shoe1985]

Watching the conference, I just appreciate how he makes an effort to communicate to the people instead of having the attitude that he's above that, which is what we've had the previous 8 years.

I loved how he said some of the things considered pork are long term investments. I still find myself scratching my head when people ask why we should invest in schools and energy. I have said the same thing as Obama.

Schools - We are in a global economy. We need to compete at a high level. The only way to do this is through making our schools prepared. Paying now will pay off in the future.

Energy - Making federal buildings energy efficient will lower costs to run buildings. Meaning less taxpayers' money needed.

People are too worried about tomorrow, and not thinking enough about 10 years from now. It makes me laugh when people ask why they should know more than 1 language. Well, competing in a global economy means you will need to deal with people that don't speak English. You should know at least 2 languages, 3 would be great though. I speak English, Spanish, and some German. In the future, it will be what you know, not how hard you work.

[QUENTIN]

Will anything happen to Bush? No.
Will anyone face consequences for their actions? No.

The fact that the government has a vested self-interest in protecting itself from prosecution when it blatantly, wantonly, and undeniably broke the law is no reason to simply accept that. If the government and government officials are not held to account, are explicitly and openly above the law, then America is in no way a democracy and we cannot even pretend to be a just country. We are either a land with a rule of law, in which all citizens and entities are subject to the law, or we aren't, in which case we cannot accept the authority of the law for any and are not protected by it.


Am I going to sit here and say what the last administration did was right? No, but nothing will come of it.

I gave President Bush time to put his policies in place, and not criticize him until a few years down the road. Do I agree with what he did? No.

So because you made a mistake then, we should all make mistakes now? Elected and appointed officials are not meant to put whatever policies they want in place and remain unscrutinized and uncriticized for years. We are not their subjects, they work for us. It is the duty of American citizens to be vigilant, to monitor policy and to voice dissent when those policies do not represent our best interest. This policy represents the best interest of precisely no one except the individuals who ordered and carried out this illegal, inhumane, undemocratic and torturous practice. The best thing about Obama is that he listens to criticism and is open to public scrutiny effecting his policy. We will not reap the benefits of that and will get the worst President Obama we can have if we adopt your apathetic, wait and see approach.



Will every decision President Obama make be popular? Of course not, and this is probably not going to be a popular one.

Popular is of relatively little consequence or importance. Just, legal, and in keeping with what he promised to do is of the utmost importance. This is none of those things, it is in fact a total repudiation of everything Obama campaigned on and Holder and the OLC promised and an unequivocal embrace of the most blatantly illegal, country destroying Bush policies.



We can implement as many torture laws we want, the sad fact is torture will always exist.

No. America actually didn't torture for quite some time. We are not legally allowed to, like the rest of the "free" world. It only exists if we the people allow it to. It only exists because of defeatist, anti-populist, anti-democratic, crime-promoting principles and practices like this sentiment here.


Obama stated tonight that there will be a website that will say were every dime of our money will go too. This is what I want to know. This is why I voted for him.

So you recognize that government transparency is a good thing, but only so selectively? Our tax dollars also paid for these innocent people to be kidnapped and tortured. Will Obama, if he continues these practices, account for those charges on his website? I'm with you that we should see where our tax dollars are going. We should also know what our government is doing, otherwise we wind up with issues like...oh, Laos, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, etc. etc. Our government is not intended to operate without and beyond our knowledge and oversight. That doesn't mean every action they take is or should be in the public record, it does mean that as a matter of daily operation they should not be a secretive organization. They should also not break the law.



If you want to know everything, it won't happen, never will happen. Obama may open things up more to the public, but to believe everything is just stupid.

This indicates to me that you are unaffected by external stimuli. You are repeating this platitude as though it has any bearing on what's being discussed and this case and this ruling despite the fact that it has already been pointed out and rather thoroughly explained to you that it doesn't.

This has nothing to do with "knowing everything." This abuse of the state secrets privilege hides, protects, and conceals no secrets. The details of the case are a matter of public record, very very well documented and aired in courts and public forums the world over. This case does not call for and none of its advocates are suggesting we should now know everything. That is a complete non-sequitir to the issue. The uproar is in part because this action is directly contradictory to how Obama and his Administration said they would act and completely in line with Bush policies he was intensely critical of and in part because it is a blatant misapplication of the state secrets privilege being used to prevent a case without secrets from being ruled on in a court of law.

If you're going to comment on the issue, please inform yourself of the basic elements of the case and what is pertinent to it. The rather mindless statements like "If you want to know everything, it won't happen, never will happen. Obama may open things up more to the public, but to believe everything is just stupid." seem bizarre and off-topic at best.

[QUENTIN]

Watching the conference, I just appreciate how he makes an effort to communicate to the people instead of having the attitude that he's above that, which is what we've had the previous 8 years.

No doubt. Obama is an improvement over Bush in almost every arena. On the subject of the economic stimulus package and that town hall discussion, he seemed fairly forthright and at the very least tried to explain what his positions were and why. Good for him.

I also like that he seems far more receptive to public demand and outcry than any president has been in 40+ years.

But in the case of this state secrets misapplication and basic continued rejection of the rule of law, I'm not sure his communication would matter much. While a direct and explanatory comment from the President on the issue would be appreciated, no matter how gently and eloquently someone explains to you "I'm raping the Constitution and denouncing the idea that the government is constrained by it, fuck your rights" the message is still the same.

Here I'll highlight a comment made by Obama tonight that seems like a great idea most Americans would support (and judging by the applause do). It can and should be applied to all arenas of government policy in this new administration. And in this instance, it directly contradicts what Obama's DOJ did:

"So we can't afford to wait. We can't wait and see and hope for the best. We can't posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. (Applause.) That was what this election was all about -- the American people rejected those ideas because they hadn't worked. (Applause.) You didn't send us to Washington because you were hoping for more of the same; you sent us there to change things -- (applause) -- the expectation that we would act quickly and boldly to carry out change. And that's exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)"

I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly and so am disheartened and feel he should be disgraced when his actions are so antithetical to that rhetoric.

[Homyrrh]

Obama has...planted himself firmly in the war criminals camp.
Does JoBlo sell plaques? No?

I'll make my own.

[shoe1985]

QUENTIN, you seem very educated, but you should know better then to think we will know everything. I knew the first time Obama said his government would be more open that it wouldn't. You make great arguements, which I do agree with, but I won't act like this is a surprise. It isn't, and shouldn't be. Most people won't know about this, and even then, will they care? Most would probably not.

Do we honestly know everything Bush did? Clinton did? The first Bush did? No, and those secrets probably will never come out. If we knew everything they did, it would probably destroy them. And who knows what is really being kept secret?

This is not to say we shouldn't know, it me explaining that we will never know everything. If this didn't leak, we probably wouldn't know about it.

[QUENTIN]

Reliably, Greenwald further explains what this case is and is NOT about and deconstructs just exactly how heinous this is and how it is a total repudiation of everything that Obama claims (lies) that he stands for and is in direct contrast with what Democrats said they would do when in power:

The 180-degree reversal of Obama's State Secrets position (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama/index.html)

From the Obama/Biden campaign website, mybarackobama.com, here was what the Obama campaign was saying -- back then -- about the State Secrets privilege:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SZFxPb4aTwI/AAAAAAAABoI/BER1Hm-wOXQ/s400/obama1.png

Apparently, the operative word in that highlighted paragraph -- unbeknownst to most people at the time -- was "the Bush administration," since the Obama administration is now doing exactly that which, during the campaign, it defined as "The Problem," the only difference being that it is now Obama, and not Bush, doing it. For journalists who haven't bothered to learn the first thing about this issue even as they hold themselves out as experts on it, and for Obama followers eager to find an excuse to justify what was done, a brief review of the State Secrets privilege controversy is in order.

Nobody -- not the ACLU or anyone else -- argues that the State Secrets privilege is inherently invalid. Nobody contests that there is such a thing as a legitimate state secret. Nobody believes that Obama should declassify every last secret and never classify anything else ever again. Nor does anyone even assert that this particular lawsuit clearly involves no specific documents or portions of documents that might be legitimately subject to the privilege. Those are all transparent, moronic strawmen advanced by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security. That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama).

Go read any critic (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/building-secrecy-wall-higher-and.html) of Bush's use (http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/) of the State Secrets privilege (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/state-secrets-privilege) and those are the objections (http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?backgroundid=142&fuseaction=Background.view) you will find (http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Fein080731.pdf) (.pdf). Kevin Drum last night explained it quite clearly (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/02/state_secrets.html):

By itself, this [the quantitative increase in the post-9/11 use of the privilege] is bad enough. But it's not the worst part of the Bush administration's use of the privilege.

Before 2001, the state secrets privilege was mostly used to object to specific pieces of evidence being introduced in court, something that nearly everyone agrees is at least occasionally necessary. But the Bush administration changed all that. In their typical expansive way, they decided to apply the privilege not just to individual pieces of evidence, but to get entire cases thrown out of court. What's more, they did this not merely when a state secret was incidental to some unrelated complaint, but when the government itself was the target of the suit.

Now Barack Obama is president, and unfortunately he's decided to continue the Bush administration's expansive reading of the privilege.

To underscore just what a complete reversal the Obama DOJ's conduct is, consider what Seante Democrats were saying for the last several years. In early 2008, Sens. Kennedy and Leahy, along with Sen. Arlen Specter, sponsored the State Secrets Protection Act (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2533/text). It had numerous co-sponsors, including Joe Biden (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2533/show). In April, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill, with all Committee Democrats voting for it, along with Specter. The scheme of restrictions imposed on the privilege by that bill was the consensus view of the pre-2009 Democratic Party.

The primary purpose of that bill is to bar the precise use of the State Secrets privilege which the Obama DOJ yesterday defended: namely, as a tool to force courts to dismiss entire lawsuits from the start without any proceedings being held, rather than as a focused instrument for protecting specific pieces of classified information from disclosure.

That bill explicitly provides that "the state secrets privilege shall not constitute grounds for dismissal of a case or claim" (Sec. 4053(b)). Instead, the President could only "invoke the state secrets privilege as a ground for withholding information or evidence in discovery or for preventing the introduction of evidence at trial" (Sec. 4054(a)), and must submit each allegedly privileged piece of evidence to the court for the court to determine whether each item is legitimately subject to the privilege (Sec. 4054(d-e). Where the court rules that a specific piece of evidence is privileged, it must attempt to find an evidentiary substitute (e.g., a summary of the evidence, a partially redacted copy, compelled admissions by the Government of certain allegations), and then -- only after all the evidence is gathered in discovery -- can the court dismiss the lawsuit only if it finds, in essence, that the plaintiffs cannot prove their case without reliance on the specific privileged information (Sec. 4055).

That has been the argument of Democrats for quite some time -- as well as civil libertarians such as Russ Feingold and the ACLU, both of whom endorsed that bill: that what was abusive and dangerous about Bush's use of the State Secrets privilege was the preemptive, generalized use of this privilege to force dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance, even where the supposed secret to be concealed was the allegedly criminal activity itself. And that is exactly the usage that the Obama administration is now defending.

It doesn't take much time or energy to understand why that instrument is so pernicious. It enables a Government to break the law -- repeatedly and deliberately -- and then block courts from subjecting its behavior to any judicial accountability, and prevent the public from learning about the lawbreaking, by claiming that its conduct generally is too secret to allow any judicial review. Put another way, it places Presidents and their aides beyond and above the rule of law, since it empowers them to break the law and then prevent their victims -- or anyone else -- from holding them accountable in a court of law. As Russ Feingold put it (http://feingold.senate.gov/statements/08/09/20080925.htm):

When the executive branch invokes the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits, hides its programs behind secret OLC opinions, over-classifies information to avoid public disclosure, and interprets the Freedom of Information Act as an information withholding statute, it shuts down all of the means to detect and respond to its abuses of the rule of law – whether those abuses involve torture, domestic spying, or the firing of U.S. Attorneys for partisan gain.

In defending the Obama administration's position (without beginning to understand it), The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder revealingly wrote (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/obama_doj_asserts_state_secrets_aclu_blasts_obama. php) -- on behalf of civil libertarians who he fantasizes have anointed him their spokesman:

It wouldn't be wise for a new administration to come in, take over a case from a prosecutor, and completely change a legal strategy in mid-course without a more thorough review of the national security implications. And, of course, the invocation itself isn't necessarily an issue; civil libertarians and others who voted for Obama did so with the belief that his judgment and his attorney general would be better stewards of that privilege than President Bush and his attorney generals (and vice president.)

We don't actually have a system of government (or at least we're not supposed to) where we rely on the magnanimity and inherent Goodness of specific leaders to exercise secret powers wisely. That, by definition, is how grateful subjects of benevolent tyrants think ("this power was bad in Bush's hands because he's bad, but it's OK in Obama's hands because he is good and kind"). Countries that are nations of laws rather than of men don't rely on blind faith in the good character of leaders to prevent abuse. They rely on what we call "law" and "accountability" and "checks and balances" to provide those safeguards -- exactly the type that Democrats, when it came to the States Secret privilege, long insisted upon before January 20, 2009.

Democrats have large majorities in both houses of Congress; they ought to use it to legislatively bar the power that the Obama DOJ is now attempting to vest in the new President by enacting the legislation they spent all of last year insisting they favored. Now that the Obama DOJ is seeking to acquire that power for its new President, the need for that law is more acute than ever.



UPDATE: Writing at FDL in September, 2008 (http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/15/first-monday-marty-lederman-on-the-restoration-of-the-rule-of-law/), Obama's new OLC official, Assistant Attorney General Marty Lederman, criticized the exact State Secrets privilege theory embraced yesterday by the Obama DOJ:

The next Administration should review the grounds and procedures for invoking the state secrets privilege. In recent years, the Executive Branch has increasingly used this privilege as a categorical bar to litigation and as a shield to avoid scrutiny of legally questionable executive programs, such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program.[26] The next President should commit to invoking this privilege only where national security interests (rather than the interest in avoiding embarrassment or judicial scrutiny) truly require it.

On his own blog in October, 2007, Lederman advocated (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/10/ok-then-senator-rockefeller.html) -- as an antidote to the injustices of telecom immunity -- Congressional legislation designed to bar the use of the State Secrets privilege as a means for preventing judicial scrutiny of the NSA eavesdropping program, arguing that Congress "should also insist on a statutory amendment limiting the scope of any 'state secrets' privilege to allow courts to adjudicate the legality of the NSA program without publicly revealing technological capabilities that must remain public." Virtually all critics of Bush's executive power abuses would be vehemently opposed -- and, in the past, have been -- to the theories advanced yesterday by the Obama DOJ.



UPDATE II: When Sen. Kennedy introduced the State Secrets Protection Act in January, 2008, he reviewed the history of abuse of the privilege by the Bush administration (http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=C56BD1D0-7AD3-46EA-9D30-A77317F28B70) and specifically highlighted as an example of abuse the Bush DOJ's invocation of the privilege to prevent litigation of rendition cases:

In recent years, federal courts have applied the Reynolds precedent to dismiss numerous cases—on issues ranging from torture, to extraordinary rendition, to warrantless wiretapping—without ever reviewing the evidence. Some courts have even upheld the executive’s claims of state secrets when the purported secrets were publicly available, as in the case of El-Masri v. Tenet.

In that case, there was extensive evidence in the public record that the plaintiff was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA on the basis of mistaken identity, but the court simply accepted at face value the government’s claim that litigation would require disclosure of state secrets. The court dismissed Mr. El-Masri’s case without even evaluating the evidence or considering whether the case could be litigated on other evidence.

When federal courts accept the executive branch’s state secrets claims as absolute, our system of checks and balances breaks down. By refusing to consider key pieces of evidence, or by dismissing lawsuits outright without considering any evidence at all, courts give the executive branch the ability to violate American laws and constitutional rights without any accountability or oversight, and innocent victims are left unable to obtain justice.

That's exactly -- exactly -- what the Obama administration is now doing.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama/index.html

[QUENTIN]

QUENTIN, you seem very educated, but you should know better then to think we will know everything. I knew the first time Obama said his government would be more open that it wouldn't. You make great arguements, which I do agree with, but I won't act like this is a surprise. It isn't, and shouldn't be. Most people won't know about this, and even then, will they care? Most would probably not.

Thanks (I think), but I actually don't even have my undergrad degree yet so at best I'm in the lower half of formally educated schmoes on this forum. But I do keep myself informed (it's our duty as citizens in a democracy) and follow closely what my government does and has done. I do not think we "will know everything." I'm not sure why you got that impression or why it seems to be your continued focus in this debate. I haven't said it and don't think it. I knew that Obama's promise to have a more open government would not mean a totally open government, but I did expect better than Bush. I didn't support Obama and did not vote for him because I recognized (so it is no real surprise) that he would not institute change in many of the most substantial and important arenas. But in his first weeks in office he focused in his rhetoric on restoring a rule of law and signaled by many of his actions (like his wonderful pick of OLC chief who believes in true Constitutional constraints), pledging to close Guantanamo, banning torture and extralegal rendition, etc. that he would implement just, legally sound policies at least in relation to this issue. There was good and considerable cause to believe Obama believed in the rule of law and would implement it. This decision is Obama's DOJ letting us know we got Punk'd and he didn't mean it, he has no concern for the law.

The ignorance and apathy of the average American you mention does not sway me to suggest I should also choose to be ignorant or apathetic nor does it justify anyone else's ignorance and apathy.

Do we honestly know everything Bush did? Clinton did? The first Bush did? No, and those secrets probably will never come out. If we knew everything they did, it would probably destroy them. And who knows what is really being kept secret?

No, we don't. But I'll bet I know quite a bit more than most, because quite a bit more is available and in the public record than is continuously mentioned in the mainstream press. There are enough "secrets" that anyone interested in researching and investigating those former presidents (and most former presidents) can find that already "destroy" them in the minds of any humane, sane individual. The former presidents you mentioned are all war criminals, thieves, and liars and their crimes are well-documented and easy to find.

More importantly, while it's fine to note (over and over) that "we will not know everything", we must act on what we DO KNOW. We know the details of this case and exactly how unjust and illegal this abusive misapplication of the state secrets privilege is. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply or say with the repeated invocation of the fact that we will not know everything, especially in this context. Are you suggesting we should ignore what we do know when it does come out and is covered extensively because there are other things that will not come out and be covered extensively? If so, this doesn't make sense to me. If not, I'd appreciate an explanation of what you mean.



This is not to say we shouldn't know, it me explaining that we will never know everything. If this didn't leak, we probably wouldn't know about it.

I'm compelled to ask: So? Yes, no one is arguing that we will know everything. We do know this, we do know it's wrong, why then ignore it? Where is the rational justification for ignoring wanton and open lawbreaking by those who govern us? This did "leak" in the sense that it came into the public record, legal documents, and media coverage via a lawsuit, and we do now know about it...so, what's your point?

Also, I will for the third or fourth time reiterate that this case has nothing to do with "knowing everything" or knowing anything more than we already know. That is a total non-sequitir, completely off-topic, does not relate to this case. This case is about misapplying the "state secrets" privilege to avoid the prosecution of patently guilty government officials and agents and would contain no revelation of actual state secrets.

[Preston_79]

Get a load of this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY84fF2hzhY

This is what happens when you don't field your questions first.

[shoe1985]

Get a load of this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY84fF2hzhY

This is what happens when you don't field your questions first.

I am curious, does this guy really work at Mcdonalds? He seems like a goofball.

[jolanar]

I am curious, does this guy really work at Mcdonalds? He seems like a goofball.

Obama nailed the question too oddly enough.

[Preston_79]

Obama nailed the question too oddly enough.

No doubt. His rhetoric was locked and loaded. Not going to let this goofy motherfucker derail a him.

[Badbird]

Get a load of this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY84fF2hzhY

This is what happens when you don't field your questions first.

Or have a room full of yes-men, like every single President Bush engagement.

Guy was kinda hyper, but apparently his "performance" has led to job interviews.

[Potter82]

does anyone else think Obama should drop his bipartisan efforts at this point?

honestly, in regard to the GOP, I don't think I've ever seen such blatant posturing by a political party before nor such naked selfishness.

In a time of great crisis, the Republicans aren't even trying to be part of the solution. Instead they are going on and on about spending which wouldn't be so frustrating if it wasn't so damn hypocritical - the national debt doubled under the Bush admin and who was the last Republican president not to run a deficit? (I think it was Eisenhower, over 60 years ago!) It is so disingenuous. The only time they seem to give a damn about spending is when they aren't in power and when it's not related to the military.

What they are doing now is obvious. They are hoping and doing everything in their power to try to tank Obama's initiative for their own political gain, rather than doing the mature, responsible thing and try to work with him to at least have some input into the process. This wouldn't be so awful were it not for the absolutely horrible situation the U.S. and the world finds itself in at the moment. The bottom line is that the GOP WANTS things to get even worse in the U.S. and by extension, the world, for their own benefit, just so they can say "I told you so!" - in the meantime, to hell with everyone else.

Over the past few weeks, Obama extended an olive branch to the GOP like a mature adult and they slapped it back like a petulant, spoiled teenager with an entitlement complex. There is absolutely no reason to think that they will not continue to act any differently in the future with respect to further initiatives.

With that said I think Obama should completely drop all efforts at fostering bipartisanship and just totally steamroll the Republicans so quickly and on so many different fronts that they won't have a chance to get their talking points straight. They see any sign of civility and compromise as weakness and so perhaps they will come to respect such a ruthless display of will.

I now think the ideal in Washington should not be to foster a new era of bipartisanship but to foster a new era were the modern day GOP is but a memory.

[Preston_79]

Republicans are definitely hypocrites. I think the Republicans spent too much and now the Democrats are going to do the same thing.


Analysis: Stimulus won't jump-start economy
By Jeannine Aversa / Associated Press
Posted: February 13, 2009



WASHINGTON -- No, the big stimulus plan won't "save or create 3.5 million jobs," as the president and congressional Democrats claim -- at least not this year.

The economy will remain feeble through 2009, analysts warn, and businesses will keep shedding jobs, though not as many as they would have without the $789 billion boost.
Advertisement

The stimulus agreement, heading for final votes in the next day or so, goes to the heart of President Barack Obama's strategy to revive the economy and will go far in shaping how Americans view his economic leadership.

What it won't do is quickly snap the country out of the painful recession, now in its second year.

It should provide some relief, economists say, though some argue it won't plow enough money into the economy to prop it up.

Tax cuts will spur at least some spending by consumers and businesses, and that should help save or create jobs. Aid flowing to cash-squeezed states will prevent some layoffs.

And money for big public works projects, such as bridge and road repairs, and longer-term ventures, such as networks for more high-speed Internet connections, eventually will generate jobs and stir economic activity.

But even with the stimulus, many economists predict a net loss of 2 million, 3 million or even more jobs this year. The recession already had cost 3.6 million jobs through January. The unemployment rate, now at 7.6 percent, the highest in more than 16 years, will probably hit at least 9 percent by next year.

"The stimulus package is not going to turn the economy around right now," said William Gale, director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

"The best-case scenario is that it mitigates the depth and the severity of the downturn. That's not a bad thing. It's just not the magic bullet that fixes everything."

Some analysts say the job market won't return to normal health -- with unemployment hovering around 5 percent -- until as late as 2013.

And the broader economy? No sudden revival there either.

The economy is expected to slide backward for all of 2009 -- a decline in gross domestic product of more than 1 percent. That may not sound like much, but it would be the first yearly decline since 1991.

"Congress put the minimum charge into the stimulus battery," said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight. "We're taking this big chance, turning the key and praying there is enough juice to turn over the economy. We should have juiced it up so much that we are guaranteed that this engine will start" through a bigger package of tax reductions.

This recession has proved especially stubborn and dangerous. The root causes -- housing, credit and financial crises -- are the worst since the 1930s and don't lend themselves to quick fixes.

The package includes Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax credit for 95 percent of workers. But negotiators scaled it back from Obama's campaign promise: to $400 a year for individuals, instead of his $500, and $800 for couples, down from his $1,000.

That equals around an extra $13 a week in most paychecks, and it should show up very quickly after Obama signs the bill. The hope is Americans will then feel more inclined to go out and buy, which would help bolster the economy.

But will recession-shocked consumers, spooked by vanishing jobs, shattered nest eggs, tanking home values and surging foreclosures, actually spend money?

"Chances are people are going to save much or most of the tax cuts because of the climate of uncertainty and doom and gloom," Gale said.

Given the severity of the problems, economists said, the bigger the economic revival package the better. Some said it needed to be $1 trillion to make a noticeable difference this year.

Others argued that the package should have been front-loaded with a lot more money -- at least $500 billion -- in tax cuts, which tend to act more quickly to boost economic activity.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com., estimates the bill will create just more than 2 million jobs by the end of 2010. The problem is, the recession will probably wipe out many more jobs than that. Zandi's prediction: 6.5 million jobs will disappear.

[Preston_79]

Obama Considers Lifting Federal Ban on Stem Cell Funding


WASHINGTON -- Expect an executive order soon from President Barack Obama on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

That's the word from White House adviser David Axelrod.

Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward.

Federal rules do not restrict embryonic stem cell research using state or private funds.

Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.

Axelrod tells "Fox News Sunday" that Obama right now is considering an executive order lifting the federal ban on funding.

Stem cells are the building blocks that turn into different kinds of tissue.




Yeeuh.

We all saw how stem cells helped Peter Griffin.