Page 52 of 344 FirstFirst ... 24248495051525354555662102152 ... LastLast
Results 766 to 780 of 5150

Thread: President Obama

  1. #766
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ How much did you pay for your tickets, you closet liberal Obamaphile?

    I just can't wait. To spend 6 hours in 105ish degree weather exposed to direct sun to hear Obama stammer through another social agenda/green-house emissions mantra. My big regret is that I won't have on a black cap and gown.

    Pity. There are two indoor facilities close by that could handle such a crowd. But it just doesn't drive the planning stupidityglobal warming point home quite as well....
    Last edited by AeroSim; 05-12-2009 at 11:34 AM. Reason: Oh- what the hey...
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  2. #767
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Arizona's White Mountains
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,629

    Re: President Obama

    I'm sure glad I don't live in the Valley (Phoenix - Maricopa County). It's going to hit 80 up here in the white Mountains. And then there's the traffic.
    FRH
    If more sane people were armed the crazy ones would get off fewer shots.

    Win 7 Premium SP1 / MX 15 KDE / MEPIS 11

  3. #768
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: President Obama

    More hopenchange.. lets threaten our allies..

    Obama to Brits: Talk and we’ll cut you off

    After the Obama administration released the OLC memos on enhanced interrogation techniques, our British allies must have figured that the US would not object to publicizing the techniques used on Binyam Mohamed, now in the UK after being released from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama clarified his position on exposing intel techniques in a letter to the Brits that more or less told them to do what he says, and not what he does. Eli Lake reports that Obama threatened to cut off cooperation between American and British intelligence if a British court publishes a seven-paragraph memorandum outlining Mohamed’s treatment:

    “If it is determined that [her majesty's government] is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future.”

    The letter stands in contrast to President Obama’s decision last month to release four memos from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel providing fresh detail on the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program.
    But, the U.S. letter points out: “Neither in [those four] memoranda, nor in any statements of the administration accompanying their release, was reference made to the identity of any foreign government that might have assisted the United States.

    “Given the declassification of the highly sensitive information contained in the memoranda, the fact that the president refrained from providing any information about foreign governments is indicative that the United States continues to preserve the secrecy of such information as critical to our national security.”

    At issue is whether the British courts will disclose a seven-paragraph summary of the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, a former detainee who was released from Guantanamo Bay prison in February.
    This issue arose when Mohamed first arrived in Britain. The US warned that any release of information about Mohamed’s treatment would create severe stress on the relationship between the two intelligence agencies, but the Brits thought that was more or less an artifact of the Bush administration. They took the reasonable conclusion that the release of the OLC memos detailing the interrogation techniques used made the memorandum a moot point. The Brits got a rude awakening, emphasis on the rude.

    What does this tell us? If they thought the OLC memo release mooted the gag rule, then Mohamed didn’t get any other extraordinary treatment than what was outlined in the OLC memos. However, the Obama administration clearly disagrees, which calls into question why they themselves released the OLC memos. After all, if this argument in the administration’s letter is true –

    “Public disclosure of this information, reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom’s national security. Specifically, disclosure of this information may result in a constriction of the U.S.-U.K. relationship, as well as U.K. relationships with other countries.”
    – couldn’t the same be said about the release of the OLC memos? Didn’t they damage national security by exposing not just what the US did in interrogations, but at least implicitly exposing that our closest partners knew about it? The subtext of this entire exchange is that the Brits had access to our interrogation techniques all along and didn’t object. That may not have been explicitly stated in the OLC memos, but the memorandum at question here didn’t arrive in 2009, and the administration’s letter strongly implies that the Brits knew all along how we interrogated Mohamed.

    Suddenly, the Obama administration has gotten shy about publicity. Why? I suspect that they’re worried about backlash from the CIA, which leaked the briefing memos showing Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding in 2002. The White House seriously damaged their relationship with Langley in releasing those memos and talking publicly about prosecutions, and they’re trying to find ways to put the genie back in the bottle. The publication of that memo will make that more difficult and give prosecution advocates more material to make their case.

    In other words, Obama’s political play in releasing the OLC memos continues to backfire on him. Amateur hour continues in the West Wing.

    Update: Had the wrong link initially; fixed it.

    Update II: Brian Faughnan finds that the Left suddenly hates leaks from the CIA. What. A. Shock.
    Good thing our "reputation" has been restored eh? This new era of openness and transparency is fan-f*cking-tastic!

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #769
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: President Obama

    ^^^ After listening to Cheney being interviewed by Cavutto, it really makes ya wonder what Obama's goal is here. Now he's going to release some 2,000 photos of detainees being interrogated, apparently photos that will not paint the US in good light.

    One wonders what the point is.

    Does he not expect an equal and opposite reaction?

    Its as if the man has no experience with backlash.

  5. #770
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: President Obama

    I get what you are saying Dutch, but if backlash was really an issue, wouldn't this have been the question being asked by the guys who were in charge at the time these events were taking place?

    Like, hey we are only going to be in charge for 8 years....after that we can't hide anything?

    Just a thought.....

  6. #771
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    I get what you are saying Dutch, but if backlash was really an issue, wouldn't this have been the question being asked by the guys who were in charge at the time these events were taking place?

    Like, hey we are only going to be in charge for 8 years....after that we can't hide anything?

    Just a thought.....
    Perhaps because the GW administration really had nothing to hide so they were not afeared of any backlash. Seeing as they informed congress as to exactly what was going on. Cheney wants more documents released... does not seem to me he is hiding or afraid of disclosure at all.

    On the flip side we have "the guys in charge" of congress for the last few years. Hint.. it aint' those 33bil repugs. Seeing as it was a practice the (D)imorat leadership has known about since 2002 and did nada to stop... demonized the GW administration up until the recent release of said documents for. Who was hiding?

    Just a logical follow up thought.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #772
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: President Obama

    BD, the Bush administration clearly thought they were protecting themselves from backlash through a couple of means. Mainly the cloak of government secrecy and the inclusion of approval by the Democrat's leadership and representatives.

    Maybe it was naive to expect secrecy to be maintained and for Democrats to be honest about their knowledge and participation, but it seems they did indeed lay cover for a backlash.

    So far that cover has worked, albeit slowly and not in pace with the disimination of selective information from Obama's administration. But we now have as a result, some people who think Bush was a terrorizer and some who see Pelosi as a liar. And the plot thickens.

    Why? What does any of this have to do with the current problems of the nation? Waterboarding was stopped about five years ago, so why did Obama open this pandora's box now? Why is he willing to open it further with a bunch of photographs? Why has Pelosi and other Democrats been so willing to perpetrate the lies and falsehoods by acting like a bunch of Sergeant Schultzes?

  8. #773
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: President Obama

    A lil southpark visual aid on how the smartest guy evar's health care plan works..






    The sheer volume of claims made from whole cloth & gibberish that passes the messiah's pie hole unquestioned by anyone in the MSM simply makes me wonder if anyone is actually listening to what he is saying any more.

    Hennessey: Imagine Obama administration is the Chicago Cubs

    After yesterday’s substance-free pledge from the health-care industry to cut $2 trillion in costs over the next decade, or 1.5% year on year, Keith Hennessey figured he’d heard this before … and so had the President. If nothing else is reliable on this good Earth, it’s the annual pledge from the Chicago Cubs to win a pennant and go to the World Series. The pledges are long on good PR but short on specifics, and any Chicago fan should be able to tell the difference. Instead, Hennessey says, Obama just got “silly” in heralding this as a breakthrough:

    Imagine if the mayor of your nearest big city were to hold a press conference with the General Manager of the city’s Major League Baseball team. The Mayor announces that the GM, working with the coaches and players, has committed that he will work to develop plans for the team to hit the Mayor’s new goal of winning 40 more games this season than they otherwise would have won. Those plans will improve the team’s hitting, pitching, and fielding. The Mayor also announces that the manager’s plans, combined with the Mayor’s new policy initiative for better parking at the stadium, will make fans happier and help the team win more games.
    Baseball fans would reply, “Great, I’m all for it.” They might then ask a few questions:

    •What do you mean the GM “will develop plans”? Doesn’t he have any specific plans yet? How will he improve hitting, pitching, and fielding?
    •How are we supposed to verify that the team won 40 more games than they otherwise would have, since we will never know how many games they would have won?

    •Other than picking the number 40, why is the Mayor involved in this press conference? What does the Mayor’s new parking initiative have to do with the coaching changes, and how will the new parking initiative help the team win more games?

    •If this is such a good idea, what has changed to make it happen now? Is the Mayor claiming that his persuasive powers alone are worth 40 more wins? Why didn’t the GM make these changes before?

    The only substance to this announcement is that the manager agreed to the Mayor’s target of winning 40 more games. Everything else is fluff or unrelated.
    How about this question: Given that these insurers all make profit on their business, don’t they already work to keep costs down as a means of maximizing their return? After all, that’s what a for-profit corporation does. If one wants to increase efficiency in an organization, give its stakeholders an incentive to keep costs down. That’s the profit motive, and why the private sector always makes more efficient use of capital than the public sector.

    That question leads to another. The push from the Left has not been to cut costs in health care as much as it has been to expand its reach, especially for the uninsured. Cutting costs by $2 trillion over 10 years, even if it actually happens (which Hennessey doubts) means rationing some care, not expanding it. The Obama statement makes this clear:

    •Reducing over-use and under-use of health care by aligning quality and efficiency incentives among providers across the continuum of care so that physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are encouraged and enabled to work together towards the highest standards of quality and efficiency;

    •Encouraging coordinated care, both in the public and private sectors, and adherence to evidence-based best practices and therapies that reduce hospitalization, manage chronic disease more efficiently and effectively, and implement proven clinical prevention strategies;
    I’m not saying that these aren’t necessarily good objectives, but that they seem incompatible with an expansion of health care. Also, while Obama’s statement doesn’t rule out tort reform, it’s worth noting again that private-sector insurers have always had incentives to reduce unnecessary treatments and hospitalization, but that threats of medical malpractice creates a need for “defensive medicine,” ie, treatments and tests not medically required but necessary to avoid lawsuits.

    If this is the strategy on which Obama will rely for health-care reform, it seems destined for failure, sort of like the Ernie Broglio-Lou Brock trade made by his Cubs. Or maybe Obama’s a White Sox fan.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #774
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: President Obama

    And now, maybe he won't release these photos. If you think like Bill Krystol, that is.

    I s'pose we'll have to wait and see. It sounds like we're a financial problem that needs a distraction away from a picture book of soldiers acting badly in the eyes of left wing loons.

  10. #775
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: President Obama

    I thought he wasn't going to raise taxes?

    Pelosi, D-Calif., and other House Democrats had met with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office just before going outside to make their announcement. No Republicans were present, and neither were any senators....
    ...The final financing package is likely to include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts in federal health programs. Among the possibilities are tax increases on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and sugary soft drinks, and restrictions on other health care-related tax breaks, such as flexible spending accounts.

    Senators also are considering limiting - but not eliminating - the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits.

    Employer-provided health insurance technically is considered part of workers' compensation, but unlike wages, it is not taxed. The forgone revenue to the federal government amounts to about $250 billion a year.

    So even if they're lucky enough to avoid going to the doctor or hospital, and never use their job-based health insurance, some Americans may find themselves paying taxes on at least part of its value.
    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/918/story/576855.html

    I know it is Congress, right? Nevermind Bush Sr. got skewered for raising taxes after promising not to.
    Brian

  11. #776
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    BD, the Bush administration clearly thought they were protecting themselves from backlash through a couple of means. Mainly the cloak of government secrecy and the inclusion of approval by the Democrat's leadership and representatives.

    Maybe it was naive to expect secrecy to be maintained and for Democrats to be honest about their knowledge and participation, but it seems they did indeed lay cover for a backlash.

    So far that cover has worked, albeit slowly and not in pace with the disimination of selective information from Obama's administration. But we now have as a result, some people who think Bush was a terrorizer and some who see Pelosi as a liar. And the plot thickens.

    Why? What does any of this have to do with the current problems of the nation? Waterboarding was stopped about five years ago, so why did Obama open this pandora's box now? Why is he willing to open it further with a bunch of photographs? Why has Pelosi and other Democrats been so willing to perpetrate the lies and falsehoods by acting like a bunch of Sergeant Schultzes?
    I understand your point completely Dutch, but here is where I disagree with you....though it probably isn't even really a disagreement rather than a difference in ideology...that is perceived by me and many others with my ideology, so take it for what it is worth.

    The republicans are trying to cover their asses by saying that they informed the democrats of the procedures. Fine. If the Dems knew more than what they are claiming, investigate away and nail every single one of them. Fine by me. Nail every single Democrat and republican who had knowlegd of this crap. Then go and nail every single one of the lawyers in the Bush justice department who thought it clever to write legal opinions justifying this stuff. Then go after the big boys. Every one of them. The truth shall set us all free.

    Here is where the million dollar question lay, and it goes back to our different ideologies.

    Do you honestly believe that the GWB administration would have NOT gone ahead with these activities if the Democrats in congress had objected?

    The argument the republicans are using right now, which is essentially "Pelosi knew about it, so it was ok," doesn't hold water with me. All that means is that Pelosi needs to go TOO....which is certainly fine by me.

    Now it looks like we'll have investigations, and as I pointed out in the other thread, I don't think the republicans want this to happen as much as they think they do.

  12. #777
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    I just can't wait. To spend 6 hours in 105ish degree weather exposed to direct sun to hear Obama stammer through another social agenda/green-house emissions mantra. My big regret is that I won't have on a black cap and gown.

    Pity. There are two indoor facilities close by that could handle such a crowd. But it just doesn't drive the planning stupidityglobal warming point home quite as well....
    Very fortunate today: 92 and very dry- so it feels like a warm 80ish.

    So much for the impressive Global warming argument.

    However, 90-105F and very dry is pretty typical this time of year around here.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  13. #778
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    I understand your point completely Dutch, but here is where I disagree with you....though it probably isn't even really a disagreement rather than a difference in ideology...that is perceived by me and many others with my ideology, so take it for what it is worth.

    The republicans are trying to cover their asses by saying that they informed the democrats of the procedures. Fine. If the Dems knew more than what they are claiming, investigate away and nail every single one of them. Fine by me. Nail every single Democrat and republican who had knowlegd of this crap. Then go and nail every single one of the lawyers in the Bush justice department who thought it clever to write legal opinions justifying this stuff. Then go after the big boys. Every one of them. The truth shall set us all free.

    Here is where the million dollar question lay, and it goes back to our different ideologies.

    Do you honestly believe that the GWB administration would have NOT gone ahead with these activities if the Democrats in congress had objected?

    The argument the republicans are using right now, which is essentially "Pelosi knew about it, so it was ok," doesn't hold water with me. All that means is that Pelosi needs to go TOO....which is certainly fine by me.

    Now it looks like we'll have investigations, and as I pointed out in the other thread, I don't think the republicans want this to happen as much as they think they do.
    Its one thing to have legal and ideological differences with the previous administration...but its another to overwork the politics involved.
    Thats my basic complaint with Obama and his people.
    Sure. I understand promises were made to different groups
    during the longest campaign on earth...but sheesh. One thing at a time and think before you speak.
    What weve been witnessing comes across like a pile of mixed messages.

    IMO

  14. #779
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: President Obama

    ^^^ BD, first about protecting from backlash. I don't think you or I appreciate it when its done only for political cover. But note my earlier point that it seems Obama has no concept of backlash at all, and showed us that by opening up this Pandora's box of "torture" in the first place, at a time when it wasn't necessary or important to the country.

    To your question, yeah, I would hope Bushy and his boys would have gone ahead without the cover of Democrats. I say that because of two things. First, I'm still not convinced that waterboarding is a clear example of torture. Second, I'm not even sure that torture should be off the table in the first place. Don't construe that second comment as my approval of torture, but more as an example that its "above my pay grade".

    But, he may well have included Democrats in the discussion because he was acting as a responsible executive would be expected to and not as a dictator. That his only purpose was to give himself cover is pure speculation. He did the same when getting approval to go back into Iraq, albeit more openly than when getting approval for the clandestine stuff.

    As an aside, a few of my Uncles were held in Nazi prisons because they were busted while operating in the Dutch Underground in Rotterdam. After hearing a few of their tales, my guess is they would have given up their left nuts to be waterboarded by present day Americans rather than being put through what they were by the Nazis. One of them had a leg a few inches shorter than the other after they were done with them and he was happy to have his leg at all. I understand that doesn't wipe waterboarding off the torture list, in and of itself, but it puts into perspective how low on the list of various tortures available that American waterboarding belongs. In my mind, at least.

    There's something that's getting lost in all of this. The environment of the time. On Rachel Maddow's show a few weeks ago, Chuck Shumer was calling for the heads of Bushy's lawyers that suggested waterboarding was legal. Here are his words during a a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 8, 2004:
    And I’d like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.

    Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do.

    So it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the foxhole, it’s a very different deal.
    Notice he's not even clarifying what sort of torture. I point out his words not in order to call him a hypocrite so much as to put into perspective how all of us have the ability to adjust our morals and actions according to the position and time we're in. Back then we were under attack. Right now we're just broke and running out of work to do.

  15. #780
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: President Obama

    ^^^Fair enough, and you'll find no greater hater of revisionist history than I. It was one of the main things I couldn't stand about the previous administration and I stand firm by that with this administration.

    Our differences in ideology definitely shine thru . I won't go into the torture vs. not torture debate with you other than to say that if you have to ask someone whether or not you think it is torture it probably is. Definitely above my pay grade there. But its easy to me when I put it into simple concepts I can understand. Like cheating. If I have to ask myself "Would my wife approve of me doing xxx with some girl," then I've already passed the point that I should have stopped doing whatever it was I was doing.

    And I think these are the things liberals cannot understand when discussing torture with conservatives, regardless of whether or not some specific act can actually be defined as torture. If you have to even defend against the fact that it may or may not be torture, you have already lost the argument, because if it is even questionable, your conscience should kick in and set you straight.

    I don't know what Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales were thinking. They obviously did not have this internal dialogue in their heads when they were asking the justice department to writeup CYA memos on torture. The thing that bothers me is that either 1) They don't have consciences, and the end justified the means no matter what, or that )2 They did have a conscience and chose to ignore it.

    Granted, I'm not in charge of the security of an entire nation. But when the best evidence you have that "torture works" is a couple of episodes of "24", then maybe that should raise a few red flags. Or maybe when a guy like John McCain steps up to the plate and says knock it off, you would listen.

    There is a seedy, sinister side to these types of people....and they creep me out bigtime. And it creeps me out even more that they were in charge for so long.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •