If you are a Democrat, do you like Nancy Pelosi?

[Serapth]

I am honestly confused here. Myself, I probably lean more left than right when it comes to ( American ) politics. That said, I honestly can't decide who is a worse human, Cheney or Pelosi. That disturbs me frankly, as Cheney is the leftist version of Satan... what does that make Pelosi?

So, that leads me to wonder... does anyone like her?

EDIT: The poll isn't who do you like less, Cheney or Pelosi, the poll is, do you like Pelosi.

[BlackPete]

Oh I still think Cheney is easily the worse human. He gave the orders, while Pelosi is basically nodding and mm-hmming along with (one set of?) the orders.

[ShivaX]

I'm not a Dem, but Cheney is worse by far in my book.

Pelosi is a worthless piece of crap, but its hard to match Cheney for being actually a bad person.

[Serapth]

Oh I still think Cheney is easily the worse human. He gave the orders, while Pelosi is basically nodding and mm-hmming along with (one set of?) the orders.

Yeah, but Cheney atleast admits to what he has done, or.... well, so far as politicians do. Pelosi denies everything, to the point of calling the CIA a bunch of liars.

Which was really the eye opening moment for me. When I realized I believed the CIA over Pelosi, I realized I really really don't trust or like Pelosi.

[ShivaX]

Yeah, but Cheney atleast admits to what he has done, or.... well, so far as politicians do. Pelosi denies everything, to the point of calling the CIA a bunch of liars.

Which was really the eye opening moment for me. When I realized I believed the CIA over Pelosi, I realized I really really don't trust or like Pelosi.

Oh I don't like or trust her at all, but I don't like or trust Cheney at all either.

Only one of them has actually done or at least authorized and rationalized things I find truely abhorrent. Pelosi is just a worm and a bad human being. Cheney is someone who seems to stand for everything America isn't supposed to. Lets be honest he really ran the country for the last 8 years. Hell in one of his interviews he couldn't even really answer if G.W. Bush knew what he was signing off on in regards to all this torture crap.

[Ink Asylum]

Yeah, but Cheney atleast admits to what he has done, or.... well, so far as politicians do. Pelosi denies everything, to the point of calling the CIA a bunch of liars.

Which was really the eye opening moment for me. When I realized I believed the CIA over Pelosi, I realized I really really don't trust or like Pelosi.

Cheney is open and honest and Pelosi denies everything? What world is that in? Pelosi, although I don't like her much, might or might not be lying right now about the torture briefings, whereas Cheney has done practically nothing but lie and dissemble in and out of office. How do you even compare the two?

[Ravenlock]

I'm not a Democrat, but I was briefly registered as one to vote in a primary (no, I was not side-switching to sabotage), so I'll call it close enough.

Voted "no". Don't like her at all.

[Johan]

Pelosi is the poster child for all that is wrong with American politics. She can share the poster with Cheney. I see no difference between them. He helped create policies that she knew about and did nothing to oppose.

It's a toss up...toss up my lunch, when I think of either of them.

In fact, I am so sick of the American political scene, and our 'representatives/leaders,' that I can't even put it into words. I'd have to vomit all over the room and have you bathe in it to understand my disgust with virtually all of them.

I could donate most of my fingers to the Yakuza and still have a few left after counting the politicians I respect and admire.

[Serapth]

Pelosi is the poster child for all that is wrong with American politics. She can share the poster with Cheney. I see no difference between them. He helped create policies that she knew about and did nothing to oppose.

It's a toss up...toss up my lunch, when I think of either of them.

In fact, I am so sick of the American political scene, and our 'representatives/leaders,' that I can't even put it into words. I'd have to vomit all over the room and have you bathe in it to understand my disgust with virtually all of them.

I could donate most of my fingers to the Yakuza and still have a few left after counting the politicians I respect and admire.

Well... the Yaks only take the pinkies...

[civil]

Checked with the gf and I can use this term for this purpose: She's a cunt. And yes I'm a life-long Democrat.

Her and Cheney are equally shit. I hope this latest "scandal" takes her down and away. She's fucking evil, IMO.

[National Kato]

EDIT: The poll isn't who do you like less, Cheney or Pelosi, the poll is, do you like Pelosi.

But since your post compares Cheney to Pelosi, it's easy to see why people are responding in kind. I don't like Pelosi one bit, but at least she didn't, you know, authorize torture of anyone.

[Johan]

...but at least she didn't...

I love that. It's the best of rationalizations possible.

[Serapth]

Against my better judgement, I just read some comments on The Huffington Post.

Ok, lets just say the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on nutjobs.

[alienmastermind]

Since when is calling the CIA a bunch of liars a problem or untrue? Aren't they like spies that lie all the damned time? Wasn't George Bush Sr. the head of those liars for a long ass time? I'm not trying to be left or right on this one. I hope Pelosi is drawn and quartered politically if she knew and did nothing, serves her right, but the issue really shouldn't be about what Pelosi knew.

It should be about people breaking the law. Torture is illegal. Someone in the Bush Regime approved of torture. Someone broke the law. (I'm betting Cheney)

[Johan]

Since when is calling the CIA a bunch of liars a problem or untrue?

You don't see the Democratic Speaker of the House, going toe-to-toe with an agency currently headed by a Democratic appointee, who disputes her account of past events btw, and accusing them of lying to the public and to her regarding EITs which may or may not have broken domestic and international law, and which she may or may not have known about and didn't do a damn thing about in her position of oversight, as a problem?

:confused:

Okay then!

[National Kato]

I love that. It's the best of rationalizations possible.

I love that you focused on your misinterpretation of tone in my sentence and ignoring the six words preceding instead of, you know, the torture.*

*similar tone being used. see if you can find them all!

[alienmastermind]

You don't see the Democratic Speaker of the House, going toe-to-toe with an agency currently headed by a Democratic appointee, who disputes her account of past events btw, and accusing them of lying to the public and to her regarding EITs which may or may not have broken domestic and international law, and which she may or may not have known about and didn't do a damn thing about in her position of oversight, as a problem?

:confused:

Okay then!

Johan....here's a paper bag...breathe, homie.

I'm saying accusing spies of lying is like accusing fish for swimming, or retarded basketball players of double-dribbling.

I also agree that if she's guilty of the rickita-racketa you describe, she should be shoved out of her position of authority along with Steny Hoyer. (Fat sacka crap he is).

[Johan]

Johan....here's a paper bag...breathe, homie.

I don't laugh into paper bags, thanks. :D I find the whole situation politically comical.

[DoctorFinger]

Here's my take on this. What's worse: someone supporting waterboarding because they honestly believe it's in the nation's best interest, or someone who lied about their position on it to score political points? In other words, Cheney used WB to at least in theory protect people, Pelosi used it to make political hay.

[Ink Asylum]

Cheney's actions were worse. Being a cowardly politician is not as bad as being a possible war crimes violator, even if he thought it was in "the nation's best interest." Every corrupt leader thinks what they're doing is in the nation's best interest. That doesn't excuse their actions.

[civil]

Cheney's actions were worse. Being a cowardly politician is not as bad as being a possible war crimes violator, even if he thought it was in "the nation's best interest." Every corrupt leader thinks what they're doing is in the nation's best interest. That doesn't excuse their actions.
On an abstract level Pelosi's motivations were entirely self-serving, while Cheney's were in the "best interests" of the country. On a purely abstract level I believe Pelosi to be the worse leader. On a pragmatic level pitting lying against torture will of course give Cheney the edge. Then again, that is what Pelosi is counting on.

Now this debate we're all having is not in the public arena, meaning I don't see anyone "out there" equating Pelosi with Cheney (unless I haven't come across it) so this discussion we're having is somewhat odd. I think the question we should be asking ourselves is why this person who has shown herself to be a partisan of the ugliest color is in a position of power. IMO, her presence on the political scene is crippling to the progress Obama promised and wants. IMO, she is as "bad" as nearly any Republican leader you can conjure from the past 8 years.

[National Kato]

You're absolutely right, civil.

[Ink Asylum]

Except that it has yet to be proven that she's the one that's lying in this situation, and not the CIA officials who have as much as, if not more, interest in covering their asses on this issue.

Personally, I don't like Pelosi, and would rather have someone else serve as Speaker, but given the choice between her and Cheney having their hands on the levers of power, I would pick her every time, even ignoring that she's a democrat and he's a republican. Blunting the culpability of Cheney's actions in office by saying he was acting, in his mind, in the best interests of the country is bullshit. He wanted to change the country and the executive office into what he wanted it to be, not what it was supposed to be, and do it in secret and possibly illegally.

[National Kato]

You know who else was acting in the best interests of his country? ;)

[Ink Asylum]

It's an excuse used by every dictator or wanna-be dictator throughout history.

Need I mention that more and more people are coming forward to verify that people were tortured not just to try to prevent further attacks, but to provide evidence for links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, even after the war was launched? Is that in the best interests of the country, or is that Cheney using torture in a self-serving manner, to cover his own ass?

[Johan]

I'm blown away that there are actually two people on the boards who like Pelosi. Good for them that this poll was anonymous. :D

[BlackPete]

It's not hard to guess who one of them was, and I assume the other one was a troll.

[Zanzibar]

I don't like her personally, but she's doing the job that needs to be done. She's a 'good politician', if you can stomach that mutually-exclusive moniker.

You know things are bad for the Republicans when the thing they're trying to make the most hay out of is what Pelosi knew about Waterboarding and when did she know it. Eight years of mind-bogglingly massive failures and this is what they're trying to do - destroy yet another reputation in their quest to bring the national level of discourse down to 'uh-huh.' 'Nuh-uh.'

[Johan]

...this is what they're trying to do - destroy yet another reputation...

:confused: What now?

Republicans forced Pelosi to ignore the briefing on the use of waterboarding and ignore the opportunity to sign on to Rep. Harman's letter of opposition to the technique at the time? And then excuse that with the lame rationale that it would have accomplished nothing?

Republicans forced Pelosi to accuse the CIA of committing a crime and lying to Congress? Did they type those notes up for her? The CIA is led by a Democratic appointee who disputes her assertions, by the way.

Republicans forced Pelosi to destroy herself on this issue? Really?

Wow. Oh my.

She didn't oppose waterboarding then, and now she wants to make hay out of the issue when it's reasonably clear that President Obama would like to move forward.

She's neck-deep in this 'policy' and has been hiding/silent for the past several days because of it, hoping her own words and dishonesty will 'blow over.' Pelosi is a partisan hack and a perfect example of all that is wrong with American politics.

[Zanzibar]

Johan, every right-winger with any talking-head experience has been shouting at the top of their collective lungs about Pelosi and this entire thing. They've all been successfully duped into being pawns of the traitorous Bush-Cheney revisionist-history brigade to keep the focus off of their own failures and instead trying to say 'See? They're no better than WE are! Vote for us instead in 2010!'

I'm not saying that Pelosi didn't screw up in her presentations to the press. She's a politican, and her response to this has been underwhelming. But is this REALLY what the GOP thinks is a winning strategy to regain power? THIS is how they want to change public opinion about the Republicans? Lame and pathetic.

[Johan]

...to keep the focus off of their own failures and instead trying to say 'See? They're no better than WE are! Vote for us instead in 2010!'

They are also trying to avoid any real investigation, which is incredibly lame on their part, but even Obama doesn't seem too excited about going down that road.

I think we should lay all the cards on the table, including who knew what, the memos, and all of it. Bush/Cheney implemented it, but Congress went along. They (Dems. and Repubs.) voted for Iraq, continued voting to fund it, turned a blind eye to torture, and the like.

They are all in it together. Whom do we elect in 2010? I haven't a damn clue. :(

[Zanzibar]

They are also trying to avoid any real investigation, which is incredibly lame on their part...

Now that you bring it up, why do you think that is? Why would the GOP want to get the initial front-page 'SHE KNEW' stories, but then want to drop any further investigation? Could it be that there's information about the Bush CIA misleading Congress that would exonerate Congress and be further damaging to the GOP legacy?

[Johan]

Could it be that there's information about the Bush CIA misleading Congress that would exonerate Congress and be further damaging to the GOP legacy?

Congress would be exonerated by a clearing of the air on this issue?

:shakes head:

If you believe a complete airing of the truth of the issue would show that the Democrats in Congress are innocent bystanders regarding Bush-administration policies, then you have a future...as an aide to Senator Franken, or to Speaker Pelosi, perhaps.

:shakes head:

Your apparent position is exactly what's wrong with us as a nation...the idea that all the wrong is on one side, and all the right on the other; the mentality that politics must be all-out-warfare, winner-take-all, and the other side is a demon to be opposed.

[Zanzibar]

Johan, with the Bush Administration's long and storied history of lying to cover up whatever the hell they want to do, why is it so unreasonable to suggest that their dealings with Congress were less than truthful?

I don't doubt that there were definitely people on the Democratic side who knew what was going on, and moreover, disapproved, but it wasn't until the last two years that the Dems could do anything about it, and by then it was already done. That's what I wish Pelosi would have said. "Yes we knew, yes we disapproved, but it was already done by the time we took control of Congress and we weren't going to sabotage our President by going public with our disapproval."

[National Kato]

Why would the GOP want to get the initial front-page 'SHE KNEW' stories, but then want to drop any further investigation?

Both Boehner and Steele support the public airing of everything that has to do with Pelosi's CIA briefing fiasco, but neither supports a Truth Commission looking into the underlying issue.

[Zanzibar]

Both Boehner and Steele support the public airing of everything that has to do with Pelosi's CIA briefing fiasco, but neither supports a Truth Commission looking into the underlying issue.

Color. Me. Shocked.

[civil]

I'm glad you threw that "apparent" in there, Johan.

Zanzibar, I'd agree that your position does seem to be very us/them. But to be fair, Johan, your position seems none too dissimilar. Your not-so-subtle jabs at Franken & Pelosi make it clear though you claim disgust with both parties your favor lies with one.

That said, Pelosi's extreme partisanship is why I think she's an evil cunt who seems more interested in maintaining a divide than in anything else. I believe that as long as she remains in power within the party the unity and progressiveness promised by Obama will never find fruition. I've met a lot of people these past few months who are good friends with El Presidente and they tell me that his aim is true, so I wait with hope that he's allowed to become the President he truly wants to. But with people like Pelosi involved I don't think he'll be able to truly accomplish what he wants resulting in a stalled vision.

Frankly I find her to be a waste of oxygen.

[alienmastermind]

You know who else was acting in the best interests of his country? ;)

Duke?
Snake Eyes?
Brock Samson?
Flint?
Lady Jaye?
Scarlet?

Could it be....Lion-O?

Optimus Prime?
Bravestarr?
Thundarr the Barbarian?
Greystoke the Legend of Tarzan?
John Carter of Mars?
The Phantom?
The Shadow?
Batman?
Hulk Hogan? (A Real American)
Dusty Rhodes? (American Dream)

Jem?
Bigfoot and the Muscle Machines? (They're big, bad, dirty, and mean)
Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors?
The Inhumanoids?
Bigfoot and Wildboy?
Shazam?
Marshall, Will, and Holly?
H.R. Pufnstuff?
The Banana Splitz?

He-Man?
She-Ra?
She-Man?
Black Vulcan?
Superman?
Aquaman?
Conan the Adventurer?
The Cosby Kids?
The Insectors?
Go-Bots?
Voltron?
Tranzor-Z?
Speed Racer?
C.O.P.S.?
Mighty Max?
Micro Machines?
Luke Skywalker?

I'm running out of ideas. Did you mean Hitler? Because, I'd feel like a dumbass if you were talking about Hitler.

[Johan]

Your not-so-subtle jabs at Franken & Pelosi make it clear though you claim disgust with both parties your favor lies with one.

Wrong assumption, but both Franken and Pelosi are partisan hacks without an ounce of introspective honesty between them.

The party that's the lesser of two evils? Even there, I'm torn. I'm socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

The heck with 'em both.

I'm glad you threw that "apparent" in there, Johan.

I was being kind and accommodating.

Johan, with the Bush Administration's long and storied history of lying to cover up whatever the hell they want to do, why is it so unreasonable to suggest that their dealings with Congress were less than truthful?

You should look at the congressional record on illegal activity. It's a hoot.

[National Kato]

Awesome List.

:p You made my day, A.

[Zanzibar]

Civil, the difference here is that there's a pretty good reason to doubt the Bush Administration's version of things. As much as an abject failure that the Bush Administration has been, they have failed the MOST in upholding Bush's 2000 promise to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House.' Most people didn't think that Bush could POSSIBLY be worse than Clinton in terms of lying and sliminess, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone (without an agenda) who thinks that Bush was better than Clinton.

My point is that there are solid reasons to think that the Bush Administration gets NO benefit of the doubt.

You should look at the congressional record on illegal activity. It's a hoot.

'They did it too, so it's all right.' Proving my point, again. Thanks!

[Johan]

'They did it too, so it's all right.' Proving my point, again. Thanks!

"...so it's alright?" :rolling eyes:

Take that shit and toss it out the window. I didn't say it, nor did I imply it. In fact, you implied that with your myopic, partisan view of Republican culpability and Democratic innocence. I pointed out that you are wrong in assuming that the Democrats can clean up the shit pile that they helped build, and which they're sitting in with the Republicans, equally.

This dance has had two parties coupled together for decades, and if you can't see how intertwined they both are in Iraq, the financial crisis, and the like, then there's no point discussing it.

The major parties are a joke. Our political leaders are a joke. The system is irretrievably broken.

[alienmastermind]

In fact, you implied that with your myopic, partisan view of Republican culpability and Democratic innocence.

I believe on certain issues the Republicans are culpable, and Democratic Party Members are innocent. For example, this entire debate should be circling around the use of torture, and the breaking of the law. Not, do I like Nancy Pelosi, or think she'd lie to keep her job.

Anyone's a fool if they unwaveringly support one side or the other, or possibly related to the individuals involved. :)

Don't get me wrong, I dig your cynicism about how the process works and all, man, but come on. You can get things done. Even at the Federal level, and even when every single person believes that you'll fail at it. We went to the moon, right? :)

[Johan]

I believe on certain issues the Republicans are culpable, and Democratic Party Members are innocent. For example, this entire debate should be circling around the use of torture, and the breaking of the law. Not, do I like Nancy Pelosi, or think she'd lie to keep her job.

I believe you frame the point poorly.

Everyone knows the Republican administration authorized what some would call "torture" and others would call "EITs." However, it is extremely relevant to know that it is quite likely that the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives (currently) knew of the techniques being used, years ago, and raised no tangible objection.

Changing the dominant party is like switching rooms/chairs on the Titanic. You're still sinking. In our case, we have a Democratic Party that has:

* Increased troops in Iraq.
* Increased troops in Afghanistan (a surge).
* Will use military tribunals for at least some detainees.
* Will continue to detain indefinitely some of these detainees.
* Supports the RIAA in fining users up to $150,000 per song.
* Doesn't support gay marriage at the federal level.

Seriously...is there ANYONE here who, presented with the list above of policy positions in May of 2009, with one party in control of Congress and the White House, would think that party was the Democrats?

:D

Hilarious. Move those chairs around...forget about the icebergs.

[torrefaction]

I'm with Johan here. I feel like Democrats are trying to give Pelosi a free pass on this shit.

[Serapth]

I'm with Johan here. I feel like Democrats are trying to give Pelosi a free pass on this shit.

Make you a deal.

If we let you execute Pelosi, can we execute Cheney?

[torrefaction]

Make you a deal.

If we let you execute Pelosi, can we execute Cheney?

Signed and sold.

But I think the core problem is much larger than these two who are effectively the figureheads for a much, much bigger problem.

[Serapth]

In our case, we have a Democratic Party that has:

* Increased troops in Iraq.
(??? Huh ???)

That said, I mostly agree with you. I think our difference in opinion is, I think the Titanic already hit the iceberg and has taken on water by the time the Democrats came to power.

[Serapth]

Signed and sold.

But I think the core problem is much larger than these two who are effectively the figureheads for a much, much bigger problem.

Yes and no. Start wielding the hatchet and cut down a few figure heads and you may actually go back to having a representative democracy again....

[Johan]

(??? Huh ???)

The number of troops in Iraq a month or so ago was higher than when Bush left office. Why, I have no idea...I'm sure there are excuses of rotation and the like, but the number was higher.

Regardless, we're still there, and need to leave. Please. Please, let us leave.

Pretty please? :(

[Serapth]

The number of troops in Iraq a month or so ago was higher than when Bush left office. Why, I have no idea...I'm sure there are excuses of rotation and the like, but the number was higher.

Regardless, we're still there, and need to leave. Please. Please, let us leave.

Pretty please? :(

Ironically, I am ( and always have been ) against the war, but I am even more against leaving before things are fixed. I think if Iraq fails as a democratic state, the western worlds chance at any normalcy in that region is pretty much doomed.

That said, I am also one of the very few non-American citizens who would support UN troops to share the burden. That said, Bush pissed away so much goodwill in the leadup to Iraq, you will never ever ever see anything happen.

[BlackPete]

The number of troops in Iraq a month or so ago was higher than when Bush left office. Why, I have no idea...I'm sure there are excuses of rotation and the like, but the number was higher.

Regardless, we're still there, and need to leave. Please. Please, let us leave.

Pretty please? :(

This is news to me as I was under the impression that the troops were being massed in Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban again.

[Johan]

This is news to me as I was under the impression that the troops were being massed in Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban again.

17,000 troops, to my knowledge, are being sent to Afghanistan. That doesn't preclude troops being in Iraq. I don't know the numbers today, but a month or two ago the Iraq troop levels were higher than when Bush left. Not by much, but symbolically, it's bad, and of course politics is often about symbolism, rather than actual tangible stuff.

We have troops all over the world, in some very interesting and obscure places. After all, it's important for us to...to...to whatever.

[alienmastermind]

* Increased troops in Iraq.
Cite, please. Where are you getting this information? Also, troop withdrawals are going on right now...If you're saying 'There used to be none, and now there's lots'....not his fault.

* Increased troops in Afghanistan (a surge).
Again, during the campaign, Obama said he would do this. This is not news, nor is it a waffle, flip-flop, or other silly adjective.


* Will use military tribunals for at least some detainees.
Yeah, nonlawful combatants and wonky definitions aside, we've already kind of dropped the ball on jurisprudence and Constitutionality when we denied them a speedy trial. I think we're supposed to have a trial for those we accuse within a certain amount of time.

* Will continue to detain indefinitely some of these detainees.

So? Some of them are, you know, terrorists. Some of them do deserve to be detained for life in connection with terrorist plots that were uncovered. (I could cite, but I'm lazy right now)

* Supports the RIAA in fining users up to $150,000 per song.

So? Yeah, it's punitive in the extreme for what seems like a small crime, but where's the guy who's actually paying this out when caught? The RIAA isn't trying to catch Susie down the street for downloading Poker Face, they're trying to bust sitez that hawk their warez.


* Doesn't support gay marriage at the federal level.

Where/when did he say this? Marriage as it stands now is regulated at the state level, isn't it? I don't think it requires (yet) a federal law to get what the LGBT community wants, ask Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire...

I'm just saying, man. You asserting this stuff without at least a quote of Obama saying this (I'm assuming you're talking about Obama, here, because a few of these things relate to Commander In Chief level decisions) doesn't help me see your side.

[BlackPete]

I find it interesting you'd say this:

Yeah, nonlawful combatants and wonky definitions aside, we've already kind of dropped the ball on jurisprudence and Constitutionality when we denied them a speedy trial. I think we're supposed to have a trial for those we accuse within a certain amount of time.

Then immediately follow it up by:

So? Some of them are, you know, terrorists. Some of them do deserve to be detained for life in connection with terrorist plots that were uncovered. (I could cite, but I'm lazy right now)

Also regarding the RIAA:

So? Yeah, it's punitive in the extreme for what seems like a small crime, but where's the guy who's actually paying this out when caught? The RIAA isn't trying to catch Susie down the street for downloading Poker Face, they're trying to bust sitez that hawk their warez.

You really haven't been paying attention to the RIAA lawsuits have you?

[Johan]

You asserting this stuff without at least a quote of Obama saying this (I'm assuming you're talking about Obama, here, because a few of these things relate to Commander In Chief level decisions) doesn't help me see your side.

“Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Each of the items I stated are based upon facts. I don't care if you "see" my side. Do the work yourself. I feel no need to persuade you or anyone else of reality. Interpret the world as you see fit. After all, in our political system, the party one supports can't do any wrong, and the party one opposes is the devil incarnate, so even if the positions are the same, one side is so obviously right and the other so obviously wrong, that it's....obvious! :D

Gotta love the idea of a "surge" toward nation-building in Afghanistan. After all, someone said it was such a horrible idea in Iraq. :rolling eyes: And military tribunals? Bwahaha! Goodness, that's rich.

:wiffle...waffle...wiffle...waffle:

[Shrinn]

I think we're supposed to have a trial for those we accuse within a certain amount of time....

...So? Some of them are, you know, terrorists. Some of them do deserve to be detained for life in connection with terrorist plots that were uncovered. (I could cite, but I'm lazy right now)


The difference being that "indefinite detention" doesn't imply much jurisprudence. It doesn't imply that they've been tried for war crimes/terrorism/ANYTHING. It doesn't imply that they're going to be released when the war is over like prisoners of war. It doesn't imply that we even know that they're criminals. Just that we're holding them forever. How long can the cops hold a suspect without charging him with anything?

If these men received a life sentence, it implies that they were tried. They were proven to be guilty and culpable and will receive punishment. The entire problem with the military tribunals was that they were created to imprison innocent and guilty parties alike in order to ensure that they secured the guilty ones.

tl;dr: Indefinite detention means no trial. No trial means bad. Bring them before a court and sentence them.


Gotta love the idea of a "surge" toward nation-building in Afghanistan. After all, someone said it was such a horrible idea in Iraq. :rolling eyes: And military tribunals? Bwahaha! Goodness, that's rich.


Military tribunals can be used correctly. They just haven't been.

I was under the impression that the surge was toward killing the terrorists in Al Qaeda/Taliban that were based in Afghanistan. Wasn't the whole downside of Iraq the fact that the terrorists we were fighting were present there only to combat us? So if we take the fight to them it should at least be more effective than sitting in Iraq and letting them stream soldiers at us.

:wiffle...waffle...wiffle...waffle:

Pics or it didn't happen.

EDIT AGAIN: I don't consider myself one side or the other. But I don't like Pelosi.

[National Kato]

I was under the impression that the surge was toward killing the terrorists in Al Qaeda/Taliban that were based in Afghanistan. Wasn't the whole downside of Iraq the fact that the terrorists we were fighting were present there only to combat us? So if we take the fight to them it should at least be more effective than sitting in Iraq and letting them stream soldiers at us.

Of course it was. It's easy to take the superficial road and just say "surge/surge" but the reality is that we should've been applying the pressure in Afghanistan from the very start. Had we not moved our focus to Iraq, we could've made a lot more progress, if not finished the job entirely (the job of finding/killing bin Laden, not winning a war on an ideology).

Now, we'll never know what could have been accomplished had we stayed that original course.

[Johan]

the terrorists in Al Qaeda/Taliban that were based in Afghanistan.

Incorrect. The Taliban and al Qaeda are, by the admission of our own and the Pakistani government, located/based mainly in regions in Pakistan that lie outside of the direct control of the Pakistani national government.

In other words, a surge in Afghanistan won't solve that problem.

Also, nation-building is a NEO-CON ideological plank/platform/objective, not a liberal-progressive one. When did Obama become a neo-con? :confused: When did he change his mind about military surges? :confused: When did he become a more palatable, more eloquent, George Bush? :confused:

[Serapth]

Also, nation-building is a NEO-CON ideological plank/platform/objective, not a liberal-progressive one. When did Obama become a neo-con? :confused: When did he change his mind about military surges? :confused: When did he become a more palatable, more eloquent, George Bush? :confused:

How do you equate spiking troop levels and bribing natives with nation building?

[alienmastermind]

Each of the items I stated are based upon facts. I don't care if you "see" my side. Do the work yourself. I feel no need to persuade you or anyone else of reality.

Obama has stated a personal belief. So? I don't know if you know this, but people can act according to the will of the people despite their personal religious convictions. See also: John F. Kennedy.

I'd like to see the quote where he's said he would veto any gay marriage legislation. But, like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Mickey Mouse, they're figments of people's imagination. Here's things he's done/said, that are factual and on the record:

'Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.'

From the White House Website: 'President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.'

'President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.'


Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." '

These quotes come from lesbianlife.about.com -- an activist website.

Other than DADT wishy-washiness, he's been pretty open and honest about this issue, something Johan, you can't just take a quote out of context and paint his entire opinion on.

I'm saying we're not dealing with an idealogue, but someone who's got the good old American pragmatism.

So, Johan, if this statement you've made is less-than-informed, and based on your deep-rooted cynicism and distrust (which in a moderate dose is healthy), what can I take from your other points?

I think you're wrong about calling him more of the same, because when the 'Titanic is sinking' (sic) you still need someone getting people onto the lifeboats, man. You need a leader. I think Obama is proving himself to be a good leader.

[Johan]

How do you equate spiking troop levels and bribing natives with nation building?

How do you not equate our current purpose in Afghanistan with, in large part, propping up a government and thereby nation-building? :confused:

You do realize, after all, that we initially entered Afghanistan, in large part, to remove one government, one that was playing host to al Qaeda and allowing it to operate with near impunity there, to create another government, right? What is that called? Nation-building (some would prefer the moniker "state building" but that's a question of diction/definition, I suppose). Who advocates that policy? Neo-cons.

Here's things he's done/said, that are factual and on the record:


Here are things he hasn't done:

* Overturned, or even advocated overturning, DOMA (signed by Bill, "I'm a Democrat," Clinton).
* Publicly supported gay marriage at the federal level.

You can list whatever you like, but when it comes down to the bottom line, he has the same position that the last administration had, which is to leave the status quo alone at the federal level, and that marriage is between a man and a woman; period. That's change we can believe in?

Sure. If you say so. :confused:

I'm saying we're not dealing with an idealogue, but someone who's got the good old American pragmatism.

He doesn't support gay marriage at the federal level. I thought that made him a bigot. I'm confused. :confused:

[alienmastermind]

If these men received a life sentence, it implies that they were tried. They were proven to be guilty and culpable and will receive punishment. The entire problem with the military tribunals was that they were created to imprison innocent and guilty parties alike in order to ensure that they secured the guilty ones.

tl;dr: Indefinite detention means no trial. No trial means bad. Bring them before a court and sentence them.

Then amend my remark to 'these guys deserve to be tried, and if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law, including imprisonment for the rest of their natural lives'. I agree, fundamentally, that we need to prove that these men are guilty.

Which, if we used torture to get their confessions, muddies things considerably.





Military tribunals can be used correctly. They just haven't been.

I was under the impression that the surge was toward killing the terrorists in Al Qaeda/Taliban that were based in Afghanistan. Wasn't the whole downside of Iraq the fact that the terrorists we were fighting were present there only to combat us? So if we take the fight to them it should at least be more effective than sitting in Iraq and letting them stream soldiers at us.

I also see the 'surge' in Afghanistan as a good thing, as the numbers of soldiers there now are inadequate to the task, and we need more to secure the area.

[Johan]

I also see the 'surge' in Afghanistan as a good thing, as the numbers of soldiers there now are inadequate to the task, and we need more to secure the area.

The number of soldiers in Afghanistan will never, ever be enough, because:

* ...we're fighting an ideology and tribal loyalty.
* ...the actual base for the people we're fighting isn't even in Afghanistan, it's in Pakistan. Putting police in Cleveland won't help Manhattan's crime rate.
* ...you cannot possibly blanket Afghanistan with enough money and soldiers to stop the poppy cultivation, or corruption, or to change local beliefs and culture.

[torrefaction]

Ugh. If we still are trying to fight the poppy cultivation, there's a reason we'll be losing the war.

Although luckily the rising costs of food have encouraged some tribes over there to switch to things like wheat, since they actually get more returns.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Case-Studies/2009/Wheat-beats-opium-for-Afghan-farmers/

[alienmastermind]

He doesn't support gay marriage at the federal level. I thought that made him a bigot. I'm confused. :confused:

Somehow, I doubt the veracity of your confusion, Johan. I think you're feigning confusion to underline the point of 'When a leftie says being anti-gay is bigoted, and their leader is anti-gay, that means lefties are hypocrites or ignorant of the situation ergo, their arguments don't hold water'.

You're not confused. You're attempting to find hypocrisy where there is none. He's not gone out to champion gay rights as President. Why?

1. The electorate is handling it at a state level for the most part?
2. There are other concerns of national security/foreign policy taking the forefront?
3. There's the whole...meltdown of the economy...to handle?
4. He's not, nor are his children, or siblings, or cousins (to my knowledge) in the homosexual community.

Championing a cause and supporting gay rights are two separate issues. I You don't see him wearing a gay pride ribbon, because he's religiously opposed, or whatever.

But, he has, in his professional life pursued equal rights for the homosexual community in the past, and has yet to do the opposite. (Again DADT interventions notwithstanding) And I'm unaware of what the hell DOMA is.

You don't list the things he has done, and when confronted with facts, simply state that because he's not grand marshal in the West Hollywood Pride Parade, he's against the gays or, what's MORE outlandish, say that he's bigoted against them.

Johan....:rolls eyes:

[Johan]

You're attempting to find hypocrisy where there is none.

I'm confused. So Obama does support gay marriage nationally? He's not a bigot? :confused:


The electorate is handling it at a state level for the most part?

And the vast majority of states that have actually addressed it at the state level have passed constitutional amendments and laws making gay marriage unrecognized and/or unconstitutional at the state level.

So...allowing states the right to handle it at the state level, even when they oppose gay access to marriage sanctioned by the state, isn't bigoted?

:confused:

You don't see him wearing a gay pride ribbon, because he's religiously opposed, or whatever.

So religious objections to gay marriage aren't bigoted? So would another basis for objecting to gay marriage be bigoted, then? :confused:

And I'm unaware of what the hell DOMA is.

Ask Bill Clinton. Or, ask Obama why he doesn't seek to overturn it.

[Ox]

Ask Bill Clinton. Or, ask Obama why he doesn't seek to overturn it.
The President has said he opposes DOMA and wants to see it overturned. Are you saying Obama should have put that bill before Congress already?

[Shrinn]

Ask Bill Clinton. Or, ask Obama why he doesn't seek to overturn it.

In the interest of being helpful.

Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)

The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

[Johan]

The President has said he opposes DOMA and wants to see it overturned. Are you saying Obama should have put that bill before Congress already?

* The president also said he opposed a "surge" in Iraq, but is doing the same thing in Afghanistan.
* The president opposes nation building neo-cons, doesn't he? :confused:
* The president also said he opposed military tribunals, but is now going to use them in some cases.
* The president also said he wanted transparency in government, but is refusing to release photos of detainee abuse.
* The president also said he opposed lobbyists as part of his administration, but has made several exceptions.

He has an unstoppable congressional majority. He could repeal it quite quickly. He "says" he wants to?

Sounds great.

[Shrinn]

* The president also said he opposed a "surge" in Iraq, but is doing the same thing in Afghanistan.


There's a difference.

[Johan]

There's a difference.

True. In Iraq, the surge occurred in the actual geographic area and within the national borders where the combatants were located. In Afghanistan, the surge is occurring across an international border from where the problems actually are originating.

So...great job there.

[Ox]

Johan, what does any of that have to do with my post. I noted that the President opposes DOMA, and asked if you are criticizing him for not bringing the issue before Congress yet. You point out he's allegedly gone back on various campaign promises. Is that a really elliptical way of saying, "Yes"?

I mean, really. It was a pretty simple question. You may be the only person on the face of the Earth who thinks I'm a fiercely partisan Obama supporter.

[Johan]

Is that a really elliptical way of saying, "Yes"?

I thought that was pretty clearly a criticism on my part. If that wasn't clear, let me be clear that I'm criticizing him for postponing or breaking numerous promises.

[Telefrog]

* The president also said he opposed a "surge" in Iraq, but is doing the same thing in Afghanistan.

Wait. Now I'm "confused." Didin't Obama say he was opposed to being in Iraq and wanted a surge in Afghanistan during the presidential debates?

[alienmastermind]

* The president also said he opposed a "surge" in Iraq, but is doing the same thing in Afghanistan.
* The president opposes nation building neo-cons, doesn't he? :confused:
* The president also said he opposed military tribunals, but is now going to use them in some cases.
* The president also said he wanted transparency in government, but is refusing to release photos of detainee abuse.
* The president also said he opposed lobbyists as part of his administration, but has made several exceptions.

He has an unstoppable congressional majority. He could repeal it quite quickly. He "says" he wants to?

Sounds great.

Johan. I think you're confused because you don't know what the President's job is. :)

He signs bills into law, and can draft legislation and present it to 'his' party. The Dems have been a fractious lot for almost its entirety. 'His' party includes Joe Lieberman AND Arlen Specter.

Good luck introducing legislation all the Democrats get behind.
You have to admire the Republicans for at least locking arms and roaring forward together no matter how daffy the law is. (Patriot Act, we're talking about you, now. :) )

But the President doesn't vote, he can use the bully pulpit, and has in the past to pass his budget. Which was a policy he touted during the campaign, and made good on.

The man has literally been in office, what, three or four months? I say give him time.

[Midrael]

For what it's worth, since I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but I have yet to hear Obama suggest any support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I may be incorrect, but I do recall hearing rumors about that during the Bush administration. I think that was always an empty threat at a federal level, but it's nice that it's not even being hinted at now.

[alienmastermind]

Seriously, Google had this as its first link. It's basically a list of what Obama has and hasn't done in regards to his campaign promises. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/)

Maybe you'd like to take a look at the Afghanistan 'promise'. Which, during the debates he PROMISED to send at least two more brigades there. :)

[Johan]

...during the debates he PROMISED to send at least two more brigades there. :)

So he promised to do what he said would be a failure in Iraq; and to send troops next door to the actual problem, not to the actual problem itself in Pakistan?

You're right that it's early, but in my opinion, all signs point to "fail" regarding several of his ideas.

[alienmastermind]

So he promised to do what he said would be a failure in Iraq; and to send troops next door to the actual problem, not to the actual problem itself in Pakistan?

You're right that it's early, but in my opinion, all signs point to "fail" regarding several of his ideas.

Man, Johan. Talking to you, is like trying to bite my own ear.
Exhausting, funny to watch, but utterly pointless.

Each time you're proven incorrect on the facts, you talk about your opinion of those facts. I'm not denying that he said the surge in Iraq would fail. Nor am I arguing the fact that the surge alone had good results in Iraq, because I don't know.

I am saying that you're implying that Obama's said he wouldn't send troops into Afghanistan, and that the record proves that implication false.

Also, Obama has admitted that he didn't expect the Sunni Awakening and other political aspects to coincide with the surge. He's basically said, things played out differently than he expected. Where's the hypocrisy?

:confused: Now I'm confused.

[Johan]

Each time you're proven incorrect on the facts, you talk about your opinion of those facts.

What facts? Oh, that's right:

Obama opposed a surge...now he supports a surge.
Obama doesn't support gay marriage at the federal level.
Obama said lobbyists shouldn't be in his administration, then allowed it.
Obama said military tribunals wouldn't be used, and now they will be.
Obama said that Guantanamo should close, but can't even persuade his own party to fund that. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D989ENI80&show_article=1)
Obama supports gay rights, but apparently has no current plans to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D989EH1G0&show_article=1)
Obama said government should be transparent, but he's fighting the release of detainee photos.

Those are all facts. You can spin whichever direction you'd like to escape them, but they are facts.

Now I'm confused.

Read it over a few times. I find that can help people to understand things at times. Also, stop trying to bite your ear. Sounds impossible.

[National Kato]

Obama opposed a surge...now he supports a surge.

Ah yes, facts (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081022.wcampaign_speech23/BNStory/Afghanistan/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081022.wcampaign_speech23).

You may want to read other people's posts a little closer as well as listening to Obama...perhaps with the subtitles turned on? I find that helps understanding as well. You see, you're confused and have been misled. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/15/2008-07-15_john_mccain__barack_obama_urge_afghanist.html)

Of course, I'd assume you understood Iraq and Afghanistan aren't identical. But then that'd conflict with your posts.

[Ink Asylum]

Don't you know that if you're opposed to any single war you have to be opposed to all wars? It's the same reasoning wherein the woman who turns you down must therefore hate all men and be a lesbian.

[Johan]

Hey, I get it now.

Obama didn't support a surge that worked (Iraq)...but does, and has apparently continued to, support a surge of soldiers into a country for nation-building (how neo-con of him) when the principal cause of instability in the country (Afghanistan) actually stems from another, neighboring, nation (Pakistan's tribal regions).

I got it. Thanks!

[Ink Asylum]

See, when you have to expand on it like that it changes from a snarky "Obama opposed something he now supports!" flip-flop comment into a reasoned critique of Obama's consistent policy that pits your judgment against his. Well done. :)

[National Kato]

...when the principal cause of instability in the country (Afghanistan) actually stems from another, neighboring, nation (Pakistan's tribal regions).

Once again, please read people's posts. The second link I graciously provided specifically mentions Afghanistan and Pakistan.

You're welcome.

[alienmastermind]

Hey, I get it now.

Obama didn't support a surge that worked (Iraq)..

but does, and has apparently continued to, support a surge of soldiers into a country for nation-building (how neo-con of him) when the principal cause of instability in the country (Afghanistan) actually stems from another, neighboring, nation (Pakistan's tribal regions).

I got it. Thanks!

In other news, my ear is delicious.

[Johan]

You're welcome.

Good luck. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html) It's so much better to solve a problem in one country by pouring troops into another, than any other approach. I'm glad to learn he's been consistently wrong on that approach. Such a relief.

Now...how about gay marriage again? Guantanamo? Military tribunals? Detainee photos?

In other news, my ear is delicious.

:D. Enjoy!

[National Kato]

Good luck. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html) It's so much better to solve a problem in one country by pouring troops into another, than any other approach.

I really don't need luck. I was simply showing how one of the points you were so sure is factual is, in fact, completely incorrect. I find it interesting how quickly you retreat to other issues, but I commend you for not trying to stay on that horse.

Those are all facts. You can spin whichever direction you'd like to escape them, but they are facts.

It's really not spin, is it? Hell, all I had to do was Google 'obama surge afghanistan' and there it was. Meanwhile you make comments to others about reading comprehension. What it shows me is that your opinion of Obama and his policies are likely based on a misunderstanding of the issues. For example, your response quoted above about solving Iraq's problem by pouring troops into Afghanistan? That just shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue.

I understand you don't like the man, but maybe next time stick to stating opinions as just that instead of dressing them up as facts.

[Johan]

I find it interesting how quickly you retreat to other issues,

I find it interesting how readily you paper over them. Obama, our gay-rights respecting, transparency-loving, nation-building opposing, military tribunal opposing, lobbyist opposing, leader has done nothing different than Bush would have.

Nothing different. What a kick that is to behold! It's truly hilarious to someone (myself) who holds our political parties in equal disregard and disgust.

I understand you don't like the man, but maybe next time stick to stating opinions as just that instead of dressing them up as facts.

I understand you like the man, and you should take your own advice.

It's really not spin, is it?

No, indeed it's not. Each of the points I made is factual, including his foolish opposition to the surge (which actually worked, which is a good thing despite my overall opposition to the Iraq war) and his foolish commitment to a surge in Afghanistan (which remains to be seen if it will work but, as I linked in my last post, is foolish at best and stupid at worst).

He's no better than Bush, in my book. He's just over 100 days in office and has already egregiously broken several fundamental campaign pledges, which I have listed previously, and made some incredibly foolish decisions regarding our economy that we will live with for generations to come.

* Guantanamo is still open.
* We have more troops than ever in Afghanistan.
* Military tribunals are on the table.
* Detainee abuse photos are still being withheld.
* Gays are still unable to receive marital rights at the federal level, or even in states that won't recognize their marriages from other states.

Bush. Same thing. Or are you planning on linking to something that disproves one of the above? I don't think so...:rolling eyes:

There is one politician in Washington that I respect. One. The rest of them are mindless, partisan hacks and fools who lie with alacrity. I view them with a level of disgust and abhorrence that is difficult to put into words. It requires spraying vomit around to truly understand it.

[ShivaX]

Well on Gitmo I think its hard to blame Obama since everyone is basically fucking him over on that. No state seems all that willing to take the people in and Congressional Dems are denying him funding.

As far as Afghanistan, that was always the plan, so I'm not sure how you can hold that against him. He campaigned on focusing on Afghanistan and getting troops out of Iraq, so a troop build-up in Afghanistan just makes sense.

He never said he supported gay marriage, but he supported equal rights, basically he was pro-civil unions with all the same rights as marriage. Now the feds haven't done anything in that regard, but the states are kind of doing most of the heavy lifting there and hes got bigger things to worry about, so again I'm not seeing any outrageous hypocrisy on that point.

On the rest of those I can't really agree with him, but I do somewhat see where he is coming from. I'm not sure photos of detainee abuse need to be seen. We know there was abuse and we've already seen plenty in that regard. I can see not wanting to advertise what dicks we were not that long ago when you're trying to smooth things over, but it does question the whole "transparency" thing in some regards I guess. Military tribunals I have trouble accepting, though I'm assuming its because of methods and all that jazz. That said I haven't paid much attention to them. I don't think it was ever the idea of a military tribunal that bothered people, but more the matter of indefinate confinement without habeas corpus and the like.

[Johan]

This editorial cartoon sums it up nicely. (http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie/2009/05/1)

[Midrael]

I apologize for interjecting in the discussion randomly here. :) However, I think equating Obama to Bush is being seriously disingenuous about Obama's positions and what he has done so far in office. Obama is not Bush 2.0, no matter how much some may view him that way or want to view him that way.

Just taking the listed points which are all lacking any form of context in order to make the two Presidents similar in position:

* Guantanamo is still open.

Obama has been very vocal about wanting to close Guantanamo. Bush supported the continued use of Guantanamo. Obama even set a deadline for closing the facility. However, he's faced with significant obstacles in doing so, not the least of which is his own party denying funds for it (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/guantanamo.detainees/index.html). The problem, as already stated, is no-one wants the detainees on US soil. Other countries either don't want them, or we fear that releasing them will result in the torture and potential death of the ones we released. It's a sticky situation. You can't just close Guantanamo. It's not that easy. Even as soon as he was in office, Obama was hoping for closing it within a year. We're just over 100 days in.

* We have more troops than ever in Afghanistan.

Obama wants troops in Afghanistan to finish the job we started and shouldn't have left. Bush let Afghanistan languish to pursue war in Iraq. That's a pretty hefty difference. We can certainly argue the efficacy of adding troops to Afghanistan, but it's certainly not the Bush policy. Regarding Iraq, Obama's announced a deadline of 18 months (back in February) to withdraw (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51P0AY20090227). That's certainly not Bush policy. With my purely armchair general experience, I'd argue that Pakistan would not be in the position it's in now if we'd stayed in Afghanistan. Honestly, I'm with you in that I'd like all our troops out of that region. But that option was never on the table unfortunately.

* Military tribunals are on the table.

Ugh, this is certainly an issue of contention. I'd really like to see these tribunals done away with. I suppose if there is a difference between Obama and Bush, it's that it's been stated these tribunals are being instituted with more legal rights for the detainees than previously (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/16/politics/main5018988.shtml). This comes down to the actual fact that trying the detainees that can actually be charged is not a simple matter. It should be, and I hate that it's not. But it's not. If there's one thing that I'm really upset with Obama about on this issue, it's that the idea of indefinite detention is even given breath. That shouldn't happen.

* Detainee abuse photos are still being withheld.

Actually, it seems that the majority of Democrats and Republicans agree the photos should not be released (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/interrogation.poll/index.html). At least, so that poll suggests. I disagree. I would like all the dirty laundry aired so we can move on and heal as a nation. I have to say I'm terribly curious about how bad those photos are that Obama did such an about face on this issue though. This issue aside, I believe you are right on one thing. Obama needs to improve transparency. I think he's doing a better job than Bush, but he has a long way to go.

* Gays are still unable to receive marital rights at the federal level, or even in states that won't recognize their marriages from other states.

Suggesting that Obama and Bush have the same stance on gay marriage and gay rights is fairly ridiculous. Boiled down to "no federal mandate for gay marriage" and nothing else, then yes I suppose you're correct. However, Obama has vocally supported gay civil rights, anti-descriminiation acts, and civil unions. I'm fairly certain that's quite a shift from Bush's previous stance on gay rights and marriage. In fact, Bush vocally supported a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14480.html). That's something that I'm pretty sure won't happen with Obama.

Can and should he go farther? I believe so. I believe the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed and Don't Ask, Don't Tell done away with. He's supported doing both, but he hasn't taken any action on either. I hope he does. However, at least gays no longer have to worry about the federal government instituting a ban at the constitutional level, at least as long as Obama's in office.

On top of the above, I could put together quite a list of things that Obama's already done which Bush would never do. Just a few:

Obama has reversed restrictions on stem cell research (http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-stem-cell-policy/374347)
Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP) (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-signs-sch.html)
Granted Americans rights to visit family and send money to Cuba (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/13/cuba.travel/)
Worked to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/29/obama-signs-ledbetter-fair-pay-act/)

There are policies that Obama has which I disagree with. There are policies he has which I believe either go too far or not far enough. However, I certainly do not hold the belief that Obama is Bush 2.0.

[Johan]

However, I certainly do not hold the belief that Obama is Bush 2.0.

True.

* He's a better speaker than Bush, as long as the teleprompter is running.
* He's well-liked, which Bush was not.
* He gets away with changing fundamental positions and violating the expectations of his base on basic issue of transparency, equality, and the like.

Very different.

he hasn't taken any action on either.

That sums it up. Much better to say the right things than to do them. :rolling eyes:

:set wash cycle to "spin":

* Guantanamo is still open.

Congress is giving themselves, and the president, political cover for a future disappointment to their base on this issue. They've already decided to use military tribunals, and now they're postponing a decision on what to do with the detainees...and detaining them indefinitely.

Hypocrisy.

* We have more troops than ever in Afghanistan.

I've already linked to analysis as to why this is the wrong policy. However, I will gladly concede that Obama's position is the same as McCain's on the issue.

What a relief. :rolling eyes:

* Military tribunals are on the table.

Rank hypocrisy and flip-flopping.

* Detainee abuse photos are still being withheld.

Rank hypocrisy and flip-flopping.

* Gays are still unable to receive marital rights at the federal level, or even in states that won't recognize their marriages from other states.

Bottom line: Obama believes marriage is between a man and a woman, in his own words.

What a bigot.

Oh, and add to your nice little closing list:

* Obama supports the RIAA in fines of up to $150,000 per song, and has staffed his administration with lawyers from the RIAA.

Some analysis on his flippy-floppying. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/zelizer.national.security/index.html)

the announcement that Obama plans to leave between 30,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq after the "withdrawal" next year.

Obama, who in February 2008 said the trials of Guantanamo detainees were "too important to be held in a flawed military commission system," now says that he will continue to use that system, though in slightly modified fashion. When Obama announced that he would not release photographs of mistreated detainees, many of his supporters could not help but be disappointed.

If you can't smell the manure when you're standing in it, then feel free to enjoy the olfactory atmosphere.

Edit: Oh dear...another flip-flop.

Land preservation. (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-say-obama-backtracking-on-land-preservation-2009-05-19.html)

[Ravenlock]

Johan, you managed to completely ignore almost every substantive part of Midrael's post, which he obviously put quite a lot of time into and provided several valid points in, and simply re-iterated your litany of complaints while adding a couple of new unrelated ones. Bad form, man. :(

Also, your constant reiteration of "bigot" is starting to really rub the wrong way. So far as I can recall I have not seen anyone on this board condemn Bush & Co for being bigoted on the stance that marriage is a male-female arrangement. They might disagree with that stance (as do I), but I haven't seen the "bigot" label thrown around over it.

I've seen it used (correctly, I think) over the stance that homosexuals should be denied the equal legal rights granted by a civil union, but you'll have to point me to the threads where people used that label just over who the word "married" will apply to. You're being pretty clear in your attack here, I think - "you called Bush a bigot over this, you should apply the same to Obama" - but (1) no, I don't think we did, and (2) as Midrael pointed out, their positions are only the same on some mythical binary scale where only two positions on the matter exist.

I'm not going to get into any of the other points because I don't have the time to dig up materials one way or the other (and lets be clear, on some of these I'm in your camp, Obama's made some really distressing choices, at least by appearance). But simply from a debate standpoint, you can do better than you're doing here.

[Johan]

But simply from a debate standpoint

Obama has flip-flopped on several major, fundamental principles. There's no debating that, there's only spinning it into a more comfortable place for his supporters, who are willing to ignore his hypocrisy. After all, military tribunals, Guantanamo staying open, indefinite detentions, more troops in Afghanistan, "don't ask don't tell" remaining in effect, gay marriage remaining in limbo at the federal level, supporting the RIAA in its draconian extortion racket against individuals, withholding detainee abuse photos, reversing course on land preservation, allowing lobbyists when initially refusing them...all of these must be more palatable because, after all, he's a Democrat, he speaks eloquently, and people like him!

:rolling eyes:

their positions are only the same on some mythical binary scale where only two positions on the matter exist.

So a little equality is okay? There's a sliding scale...a kind of continuum, and only past a certain point of restriction is one a bigot? Where exactly is the cutoff point for bigotry? How little equality is enough to remove the tarnish of bigotry? Is it only a subtext for conservative politicians, and not for Democratic ones (Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law, after all)?

It's so confusing to keep straight, you know.

More here! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_guantanamo_detainees;_ylt=AuokUP8wGniujsbyJN2dh d6ReZd4;_ylu=X3oDMTJxY2R2ODdpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwN TIwL3VzX2d1YW50YW5hbW9fZGV0YWluZWVzBGNwb3MDMgRwb3M DMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2p1ZGdlc2F5c3VzY w--)

Bates' opinion comes amid increasing debate over whether President Barack Obama is going to release anyone from Guantanamo. Obama has promised to close the prison by January, but Senate Democrats say they will block the move until he comes up with a plan for the detainees.

Earlier this year, Bates ordered the Obama administration to give its definition of whom the United States can continue to hold at Guantanamo. The administration responded with a definition that was largely similar to the Bush administration's, drawing criticism from human rights advocates.

But he said the Obama administration went beyond the law of war by including in its definition those who "supported" enemy forces.

"The court can find no authority in domestic law or the law of war, nor can the government point to any, to justify the concept of 'support' as a valid ground for detention," Bates wrote.

If you're going to try to persuade me that up is down, and down is up, and that Obama hasn't flip-flopped, and that he isn't essentially a replica of Bush in some of the most significant policies of his administration, I'm not going to budge, because reality argues against you, and if you can't see reality, you certainly can't be persuaded by "debate."

Again: This editorial cartoon sums it up nicely. (http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie/2009/05/1)

[Ox]

Obama has been very vocal about wanting to close Guantanamo. Bush supported the continued use of Guantanamo.
Actually, President Bush said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5102528.stm) he wanted (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286113,00.html) to close (http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/07/bush-to-close-g.html) Guantanamo too. I agree that the President is not the same as his predecessor, but there's no need to distort the views of his predecessor to make that point.

However, at least gays no longer have to worry about the federal government instituting a ban at the constitutional level, at least as long as Obama's in office.
I don't think they had to worry about it before, either. But you might want to double-check Article V of the Constitution: the President plays no role in the amendment process.

[Midrael]

Actually, President Bush said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5102528.stm) he wanted (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286113,00.html) to close (http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/07/bush-to-close-g.html) Guantanamo too. I agree that the President is not the same as his predecessor, but there's no need to distort the views of his predecessor to make that point.

I stand corrected on that point. :) Actually, I believe I recall reading some of that news now, though Bush never did set a deadline. For what it's worth, that's one of the first things Obama did regarding Guantanamo. Whether or not he'll meet it, or be able to meet it, remains to be seen.

I don't think they had to worry about it before, either. But you might want to double-check Article V of the Constitution: the President plays no role in the amendment process.

Learn (or re-learn) something new everyday! From Wiki:
Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and ratified by three-quarters of the states.

So I suppose the President doesn't have a role in constitutional amendments, aside from rallying support for one side or the other from the bully pulpit. Regardless, I believe it's evident there is a shift in tone towards gays from the Obama administration versus the Bush administration.

[Ox]

I stand corrected on that point. :) Actually, I believe I recall reading some of that news now, though Bush never did set a deadline. For what it's worth, that's one of the first things Obama did regarding Guantanamo. Whether or not he'll meet it, or be able to meet it, remains to be seen.
Oh yes. I don't mean to suggest Obama and Bush are identical on the issue. But I think it's worth noting how successful Democrats have been at painting Republicans as somehow completely delighted with indefinite detention and a permanent prison on Gitmo. Both parties attempt to manipulate the perception of themselves and their opponents, of course, but this is an unusually successful example of such manipulation for which the Democrats deserve credit.

Regardless, I believe it's evident there is a shift in tone towards gays from the Obama administration versus the Bush administration.
True. Obama is far more like Cheney than Bush, at least on gay rights.

[Ravenlock]

And then, Johan, you turned around and did exactly the same damn thing to me. This is what I'm talking about - by all accounts you appear not to read the post you reply to.

I specifically said, I'm not going to combat your litany of points (with the exception of the one that I did, which I'll get to in a moment), and in fact agree with several of them, but took issue with you ignoring the content of Midrael's arguments in favor of repeating your litany. You then replied to ME by repeating the litany, and again adding more to the list. Jesus Christ.

Anyhow...

So a little equality is okay? There's a sliding scale...a kind of continuum, and only past a certain point of restriction is one a bigot? Where exactly is the cutoff point for bigotry? How little equality is enough to remove the tarnish of bigotry? Is it only a subtext for conservative politicians, and not for Democratic ones (Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law, after all)?

Here I may be misinterpreting your position, and if I am, I apologize. It has sounded like you personally do not believe that Obama's position (or Bush's before him) is bigotry, but are insisting that everyone else apply the bigot label to him because you feel they did so with Bush. To which I responded that (1) I didn't see people on here labeling Bush a bigot for saying "marriage is between a man and a woman", and (2) I think there's enough difference between their positions that even if they did, they might not feel the same way about Obama's position.

If in fact you do believe that Obama's stance is bigoted, that's fine, and sorry again for misinterpreting you. I would argue that yes, there is a continuum of opinion on the issue (where on the FAR left end I suppose one requires churches to grant marriages to any couple regardless of gender, and on the far right end civil unions are outlawed and homosexual behavior is made criminal again), and that Obama's position on that continuum definitely seems different from Bush's, but I'm not going to claim to know where to put the "bigot" point on that scale.

My personal suspicion is that neither Bush nor Obama has a very strong personal ideological stance on the issue, and that Bush simply had a more right-wing base whose position he had to pretend to favor, whereas Obama has a little more leeway to straddle the middle ground of "civil unions are good, but the definition of 'marriage' shouldn't 'change'."

For whatever it's worth, as far as I'm concerned governmentally recognized unions should be called just that, should not care about gender, should be recognized everywhere, and should not occur in churches. "Marriages" can be handled by whichever religious or other social grouping organization a couple wants, performed under whatever rules they wish, and recognized or not between those groups without me ever having to care about it.

[Johan]

I specifically said, I'm not going to combat your litany of points

I understand, since there's nothing much to say about them except that they're the truth. As I said:

Obama has flip-flopped on several major, fundamental principles. There's no debating that, there's only spinning it into a more comfortable place for his supporters, who are willing to ignore his hypocrisy. After all, military tribunals, Guantanamo staying open, indefinite detentions, more troops in Afghanistan, "don't ask don't tell" remaining in effect, gay marriage remaining in limbo at the federal level, supporting the RIAA in its draconian extortion racket against individuals, withholding detainee abuse photos, reversing course on land preservation, allowing lobbyists when initially refusing them...all of these must be more palatable because, after all, he's a Democrat, he speaks eloquently, and people like him!

I'm not interested in how anyone wants to nuance their way out of it, which is exactly why there's nothing to reply to in any of the previous posts as far as I'm concerned. He's like the vast majority of other politicians in my book...a hypocritical, deceitful individual who gets a pass because he speaks well, is well-liked, and is progressive in his words, if virtually identical to the much-reviled Bush in his actions and the actual bottom-line of his policies.

Anything else is spin-cycle bull. I'm having none of it.

[Ravenlock]

Oh fuck it I'm done. Johan I'm not even ARGUING with you except for one point you apparently aren't willing to look at, but you can't be bothered to read my post to find that out. G'night everybody.

[Johan]

Johan I'm not even ARGUING with you except for one point you apparently aren't willing to look at...

I've looked at it and find it wanting of any of my attention when compared to the overall picture of hypocrisy on the part of both Obama and his supporters regarding the issues I've already mentioned.

[Ravenlock]

I've looked at it and find it wanting of any of my attention when compared to the overall picture of hypocrisy on the part of both Obama and his supporters regarding the issues I've already mentioned.

And that's exactly why people can't stand your behavior in these threads, when it manifests this way.

Folks put considerable time and effort into trying to analyze your points and respond with both the parts of your argument that they agree with and the parts that they disagree with, and your response is essentially:

Not worth my time. <Cut & Paste my last post>. <Add more stuff not germane to what you're trying to discuss>.

So, again, fuck it. You clearly aren't interested in engaging in an actual discussion, and to be fair to you, you've basically said as much and I should have taken the hint. It just makes me sad because I know you can do better and are choosing not to.

[Johan]

Folks put considerable time and effort into trying to analyze your points and respond

Horseshit. Folks put considerable time and effort into pushing their own agenda and defending their own turf. In this case, Obama is obviously a flip-flopping, deceitful windbag whose words are becoming increasingly meaningless, and whose supporters bend over and take it, repeatedly, and call it "good."

:rolling eyes:

More along the same vein...flip flopping away! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286200693341141.html)

[Midrael]

Horseshit. Folks put considerable time and effort into pushing their own agenda and defending their own turf. In this case, Obama is obviously a flip-flopping, deceitful windbag whose words are becoming increasingly meaningless, and whose supporters bend over and take it, repeatedly, and call it "good."

I've noticed a trend of trying to paint Democrats as accepting of anything Obama does (likely since the same was probably done to Republicans with Bush). Actually, and this is only my personal perspective, I've noticed quite the opposite. It seems the far left in particular has been considerably vocal when disagreeing with a position that Obama either takes or even is rumored to take.

Also, I'm sorry if you feel that I was only "defending my own turf." For what it's worth, I did agree with you on at least two points on which Obama's current stance is at least worthy of worry and skepticism.

More along the same vein...flip flopping away! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286200693341141.html)

I hate admitting this, as it may mean that I've been manipulated by the media into completely dismissing the guy, but I saw this was an opinion piece "By KARL ROVE" and stopped reading.

[Ox]

I hate admitting this, as it may mean that I've been manipulated by the media into completely dismissing the guy, but I saw this was an opinion piece "By KARL ROVE" and stopped reading.
I've read Karl Marx's writings. If you dislike and distrust Rove more than I dislike and distrust Marx, I will be impressed that a human heart can contain such strong emotion.

[Shrinn]

I've read Karl Marx's writings. If you dislike and distrust Rove more than I dislike and distrust Marx, I will be impressed that a human heart can contain such strong emotion.

Difference being that Marx has interesting ideologies while the Rove piece just had misinformation. Curiously enough, the piece seemed to mirror every point of Johan's, right in a row.

I absolutely love that website that has Obama's promises and whether he kept or broke them. Genius stuff and I'll be checking it occasionally.

[Johan]

Even more flipping with the flopping! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003535.html)

Curiously enough, the piece seemed to mirror every point of Johan's, right in a row.

Got stock in tinfoil?

My ideas were my own, from extensively reading about Obama's positions, and where he has twisted and turned them. I noticed the article just prior to posting it.

CHECK THE DATE ON THE ARTICLE! Then, for kicks and giggles, check the dates on my posts.

Was that clear enough? :rolling eyes:

Frankly, your post is exactly the kind of thing I expect from people who mindlessly worship at the altar of Obama (do you?), and look for anything they can to deflect criticism away from him.

He's a politician, and a very effective one. He lies, changes positions, and people eat it up. Well done.

[Shrinn]

Okay. I like your advancement of political threads here Johan, but enough is enough. I said "Curiously enough". I didn't say "Johan is Rove's bitch". Relax some. I wasn't being accusatory, just noting something.

Seriously man. Relax.

Alternate ending: Johan is Karl Rove!

[National Kato]

Jesus, GYOFB.

Back on topic: It appears the CIA has lied to Congress in the past. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/john-boehner-admits-cia-lied-pete-hoekstra) At least John Boehner admits that much. I think everyone will be best served by all the information being released and public. Only then can we truly know what the hell is going on.
Blitzer: Last year the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, he said this in response to a case that he was watching very closely, an American citizen who was killed in a plane crash, the cover up he alleged involving the CIA, he said these words--"We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress". That's what Pete Hoekstra said in 2008.

Boehner: Pete Hoekstra did say that. And the Inspector General at the CIA did an investigation and it became clear that some CIA operatives did in fact cover this up. This is not, we’re talking about two different issues here. All the facts in this case are on the table and the truth is now known to all of... to everyone.

Blitzer: So, based on what you know on that case involving Hoekstra, the case he was interested in, do you agree that the CIA then lied to Congress?

Boehner: I know as much about this case as Pete Hoekstra does and the Inspector General did in fact do an investigation, produced a report and frankly supported, I think, Pete’s claims. And all we're trying to do here in both cases is to get to the bottom, get to the truth, and the truth is what we want here. And the fact is that CIA Director Panetta issued a very strong letter to Speaker Pelosi making it clear that in his opinion they did not mislead her or lie to her. And so I either want to see the documents or I'd like to see the Speaker apologize.

[Johan]

Jesus, GYOFB.

Jesus isn't posting here. Is he? :D

[Ox]

Difference being that Marx has interesting ideologies while the Rove piece just had misinformation. Curiously enough, the piece seemed to mirror every point of Johan's, right in a row.
Comparing Karl Rove to Johan is wildly unfair, especially in this instance.

First, Rove is praising Obama, not criticizing him. That's clear from the second sentence: "This is a welcome about-face." Indeed, I'm having a hard time seeing much misinformation there at all (although I think he needs to flesh out more why supporting a surge in Afghanistan is an about-face from his stance on the Iraq surge). And I disagree with his conclusion: I don't think voters punish elected officials for changing their positions, but instead only care about the results.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I think you should really walk back your unfair criticism of Mr. Rove.

[civil]

Frankly, your post is exactly the kind of thing I expect from people who mindlessly worship at the altar of Obama (do you?), and look for anything they can to deflect criticism away from him.
I had decided to stay out of this thread after seeing it devolve into a back and forth argument rather than a discussion, but I wanted to point this out because I feel here we have the crux of Johan's position towards Obama.

I'm not saying that both sides haven't presented valid and meaningful points and I do not intend to single out Johan as being solely guilty of this. But Johan I have noticed that many (not all) who responded to this thread have conceded that you have raised good questions and some have even agreed with you while still maintaining an overall different opinion than yours. But your response has largely been the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling out "Nya nya" without (seemingly) reflecting and responding (you appear to mostly react and I know you know the difference between the two). You don't so much seem interested in having a discussion as in proving those you perceive as Obama Worshipers wrong.

But I hope you understand that it is this same antagonistic tactic that is used in attacks against Christianity. I know, I used those tactics and had that mindset for most of my life. A great many people are annoyed with (and in some cases disgusted with) Christians and will not listen, actually listen, because of this. Frankly I can't blame them 99% of the time - I often want to punch most Christians I meet. But there is always room for listening and reflecting. Always.

Again, I don't mean to single you out but I think you'll conceded that you have a...colorful...reputation when it comes to discussing things.

[Ox]

An interesting contrast: compare Karl Rove's article with this one (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/19/obama/index.html), and discuss which one has more misinformation.

[Shrinn]

I think I'm out-knowledged here. As such, I'm heading back to watching from the sidelines.

[Ox]

Okay, but I really, really encourage everyone to read this (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2) article, which I only saw today. Greenwald cites it approvingly, despite it being written by a former Bush official. It should be required reading for any discussion of Obama v. Bush on war-on-terror issues. In fact, much as I cannot stand Greenwald, I think his analysis of the article I linked deserves quoting:
None of Goldsmith's analysis is grounded in the proposition that Obama hasn't yet acted to change Bush policies, thus rendering a nonsequitur the response that "Obama needs more time; it's only been 4 months." Goldsmith is describing affirmative steps Obama has already announced to adopt the core Bush "terrorism" policies.
Emphasis original.

[Johan]

Perhaps I've missed something, but I think you should really walk back your unfair criticism of Mr. Rove.

Oh, you're so cheeky. :D

I think you'll conceded that you have a...colorful...reputation when it comes to discussing things.

Colorful...yes, I'd say so. :D

Okay, but I really, really encourage everyone to read this (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2) article, which I only saw today.

If we wanted an improved Bush, we elected the right guy for the job? After all, if you want to sell unpalatable policies/products, you choose to market your message with a popular person to endorse them. :D

So much to smile about...

Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric.

This is what I've been driving at, but far less eloquently than the article linked by Ox. Slap a shiny coat with "CHANGE" on it, and it goes down so much easier!

[torrefaction]

This is all silly. Yes, Obama has backed off on some of the campaign promises after receiving information he wasn't privy too. THANK FUCKING GOD.

This means Obama is more than rhetoric and speech, but a man with a backbone willing to do what's necessary, and not necessarily what's right for his political career.

Outside of the stimulus package actions, which I'd argue he was forced into a corner because Bush already started the bailout ball rolling, I've never been so glad I voted for Obama.

[torrefaction]

And, once and for all, let's clear the air on what he's REALLY done, with an external, unbiased source rather than a bunch of mud slinging and fear mongering on both sides.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The truth is, he's upheld the MAJORITY of his promises, and the very few that were broken are, well...GOOD.

[Johan]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The truth is, he's upheld the MAJORITY of his promises, and the very few that were broken are, well...GOOD.

Was that supposed to support the contention that Obama has upheld the "MAJORITY" of his promises?

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises
The Obameter Scorecard

* Promise Kept 29

* Compromise 8

* Promise Broken 6

* Stalled 8

* In the Works 62

* No Action 401

He's kept 29 and compromised/broken/stalled 22. That's the only way to spin the numbers to support your contention, and frankly, this kind of statistical extrapolation is silly, because some promises are quite easy to keep, as well as rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things (I promise you'll have ice cream for dessert tonight, kids), while other promises are much graver in their consequences if broken (I promise to close Guantanamo and give those detained there non-military trials...a stalled/broken promise, for the respective parts mentioned there, if ever there was one, and a HUGE one at that).

Using a number to represent this is, frankly, silly, but since it requires no real thought or analysis of which promises are simple, which are difficult, which are important, and which are not, it's quite attractive...especially for sound-bites.

Of course, this leaves aside the fact that the "MAJORITY" of his promises are "in the works/no action" to the tune of 463 out of the 500.

That's a real majority right there. Many of those are major ones, at that.

Numbers. They're fun. Promises kept (29), promises broken/stalled/compromised (22). Number remaining? 463.

He's a political genius.

[torrefaction]

4 months Johan. I understand some of your points, but he also is dealing with a complete economic meltdown, and policies originally implemented by Bush in terms of the economic meltdown.

This is mostly pot-stirring, and it strikes me as absurbist.

[Johan]

This is mostly pot-stirring, and it strikes me as absurbist.

The site you linked says this about Obama's promise on PAYGO (promise #34, all caps are theirs...it's an acronym):

"Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue."

They say PAYGO is stalled.

Stalled? Good Lord, are they kidding? That's been broken by his $2 trillion budget deficit for this year, and projections for deficits as far as the eye can see.

It's hard to take them seriously when they make such a simple, basic error. Amazing. PAYGO is stalled?

Wow. PAYGO was destroyed by his budget, not stalled. :rolling eyes:

[Serapth]

4 months Johan. I understand some of your points, but he also is dealing with a complete economic meltdown, and policies originally implemented by Bush in terms of the economic meltdown.

This is mostly pot-stirring, and it strikes me as absurbist.

Whodda thunk we would see the day Torre was defending Obama's fiscal policy!

:D

[torrefaction]

Whodda thunk we would see the day Torre was defending Obama's fiscal policy!

:D

Logic is my worst enemy sometimes. I'd very much love to be trashing a Democrat president right now.

[Johan]

Obama's "plan" from his speech today. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124302633236948169.html)

Some detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are deemed too dangerous to release and may not be able to put on trial, creating a quandary that President Barack Obama said Thursday poses "the toughest issue we will face."

There are still many unknowns in the administration's plans.

The tough issue...remains unresolved. No plan.

The administration has floated with Congress a possible plan that would seek legislation allowing the government to hold suspected terrorists without trial indefinitely on U.S. soil.

Oh...great! "Coming to America!" Indefinitely!

"It's really crossing a constitutional Rubicon," said Jonathan Hafetz, American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented Ali al Marri. Mr. al Marri recently pleaded guilty to being an al Qaeda sleeper agent after years being held without charge as an "enemy combatant."

Mr. Hafetz says that President Obama is "taking steps that are inconsistent with our legal traditions and values. At the same, he's closing Guantanamo but he's creating a new Guantanamo in another form."

Bush 2.0. The last one, 1.0, was the beta version.

Edit: What an incredible surprise. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/22882)

I have to catch my breath over the shock that a major political party is descending into name-calling immaturity and ridiculousness.

:shakes head:

Stick to the issues, eh? Perhaps not...

[torrefaction]

Wow, I hate Pelosi and all..but just....wow

[Serapth]

Wow, I hate Pelosi and all..but just....wow

... you lost me somewhere?

[ShivaX]

... you lost me somewhere?

From Johan's link:

But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think “Pussy Galore.”

At least that’s the takeaway from a video released by the committee this week – a video that puts Pelosi side-by-side with the aforementioned villainess from the 1964 James Bond film “Goldfinger.”

The RNC video, which begins with the speaker’s head in the iconic spy-series gun sight, implies that Pelosi has used her feminine wiles to dodge the truth about whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the use of waterboarding in 2002. While the P-word is never mentioned directly, in one section the speaker appears in a split screen alongside the Bond nemesis – and the video’s tagline is “Democrats Galore.”


It goes on to talk about how theres a lot of sexist attacks on her from the right and the RNC itself, when they could easily be attacking her on other things or at least debating the issues instead.

[Ox]

Doesn't this fall under the same category as "lipstick on a pig": you are only going to see sexism there if you are predisposed to think the worst of the speaker? There aren't exactly a ton of easily-recognizable female Bond villains. And it's not entirely clear to me exactly why the RNC would specifically want you to associate Nancy Pelosi with the word "pussy"... frankly, I'm pretty sure no one in America really wants that mental image.

[ShivaX]

Doesn't this fall under the same category as "lipstick on a pig": you are only going to see sexism there if you are predisposed to think the worst of the speaker? There aren't exactly a ton of easily-recognizable female Bond villains. And it's not entirely clear to me exactly why the RNC would specifically want you to associate Nancy Pelosi with the word "pussy"... frankly, I'm pretty sure no one in America really wants that mental image.

Well its a bit more overt than lipstick on a pig because Obama didn't use that phrase in relation to Palin at all, whereas this is a direct reference to Pelosi. And they're the ones that went with the whole "Democrats Galore" thing, which even goes further down that road.

I think theres plenty of things to hate about Pelosi, you don't really need to go down the gender road.

[Serapth]

Well its a bit more overt than lipstick on a pig because Obama didn't use that phrase in relation to Palin at all, whereas this is a direct reference to Pelosi. And they're the ones that went with the whole "Democrats Galore" thing, which even goes further down that road.

I think theres plenty of things to hate about Pelosi, you don't really need to go down the gender road.

I see a certain Irony that if someone made a video casting say... Dick Cheney as say... Darth Vader... nobody would make a peep about it.

[Shrinn]

I'd make peeps. Laughter, mostly.

[alienmastermind]

I see a certain Irony that if someone made a video casting say... Dick Cheney as say... Darth Vader... nobody would make a peep about it.

Who this guy?

http://needlenose.com/i/swopa/BushObamaCheney_Inauguration.png

Yeah, he looks like a ray of sunshine. Even his buddies call him Darth Vader (Bill Cristal did that on Meet the Press).