Obama

Wow, your last reply reeks of desperation. It reads like the LAST log entry of a doomed 19th century pioneer lost in his failed pursuit to reach the antarctic.Regarding your "invisible unnamed comrades in arms": If there are indeed errors in my posts, someone should speak up. Perhaps I merely need someone of respectability to write the words to convince me. It may be nice to win a debate, but we should be here FIRSTLY for personal growth, knowledge and truth.And Pops, it is not nice or FAIR to accuse Oni and Xongsmith of disingenuousness. Just not cool. I love your hypocrisy. YOU are telling ME I am evading points: size, context, child torture, illegal wire tapping, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, SIGNING STATEMENTS.I marveled at the Bush Jr. administration. Really. His presidency did so much. Not at all encumbered by the fundamental structure of our government, LAWS, checks and balances, morality. The way the presidency powerfully framed arguments so that gullible Americans joyfully voted against their own interests? (At one point 90% of Americans supported the immoral and illegal wars. Wow.) And signing statements? Record amounts. Executive orders? Oodles. However, you want everyone to believe that, NOW, SUDDENLY, due to the fundamental structure of our government, Obama's presidency is powerless to enact any worthwhile "liberalisms"???And supposedly this powerlessness especially includes child torture (rhetorical?, oh puhlease. Yeah, I often ask rhetorical questions aloud a dozen times. Idiot). Child torture is repugnant, reprehensible, despicable, immoral, and ALREADY quite illegal. Yet you say "liberal" Obama is powerless to make an executive order against the fundamental structure of our government that supposedly supports this criminality? (Just who do you think would raise his hand to object to THIS executive order?)And by the way, voting FOR wire-tapping is not a rhetorical subject either. Do you really believe when Obama voted FOR illegal wire tapping he was acting liberal? (Idiot.)And finally Mr. Tattle-Tale:The current score is 4 to 1. (AdminPD is also on record saying that you are stinky.)

No, Oni, I didn't misrepresent you in any way. I used your own words to demonstrate that we're reasoning from the same basis, except I know one more thing that you don't - Dronester is lying to save face.When you combine what we both agree on with what I know about Dronester - which is not a secret, it's just something you haven't realized yet - then the conclusion is obvious. Dronester himself has asked that we interpret his remarks about the embassy in the context of the other things he'd like to see taken out of Iraq, so why don't you go ahead and do so?And while you're at it - if it's so important for you to continue this conversation, why don't you answer the questions I asked?

quote:

---

What other interpretation is there when Dronester puts the US embassy in Iraq on a list of things he wants out of Iraq? What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that the US embassy in Iraq "isn't going anywhere"? (Where would it go?) What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that Obama is continuing the Bush "policy" of not closing the US embassy in Iraq?

---

Again - don't just tell me you "interpret his remarks as complaints about the size of the embassy." Answer the specific questions I asked you. What connection does Obama have to the size of the embassy except for the fact that he's not yet torn it down? Well, that's clearly false. Throughout this thread you've referred to what you perceive is some kind of tendency on my part to not admit when I'm wrong. Of course, that's not true - probably nobody at EvC has admitted to being wrong more than me. It's just that I don't admit I'm wrong when I'm not wrong, just as I'm not admitting to being wrong about what Dronester has said because I'm not wrong about what he's said, as I've proven. What he means by his entire paragraph is that just like Obama is to blame for not withdrawing troops from Iraq, mercenaries from Iraq, and military bases from Iraq, Obama is to blame for not withdrawing the enormous US embassy from Iraq. Dronester's paragraph was a list of things Obama should have withdrawn from Iraq and hasn't. He's even admitted it.

Poetic, but futile.I see you've neither responded to my point or to Panda's question.Disappointing. You're the only one who would know, in this case. If you didn't intend to complain that Obama hasn't yet torn down the enormous US embassy, then why have you repeatedly made that complaint? In regards to the giant US embassy, exactly what part of it do you feel Obama is responsible for?You've said "continuing the policy", but only policy here is not closing the embassy. So you're lying when you say that you've never said Obama should close the embassy. You've actually said it four times, now. I've addressed these points. These are, again, all the result of systematic constraints that leave a liberal president no other choice. Obama could be as liberal as they come - and is! - and guess what we're going to get? Extraordinary rendition, torture of children, illegal wiretapping, executive orders, signing statements.How many threads do we have to open before you're prepared to address that basic point? Yes, because the goals of the Bush Administration were fundamentally conservative ones - illegal wiretapping made legal, wars, an increased security state, hegemonic expansion. The Bush administration was able to accomplish so much because the policy goals of that Administration were the exact things the government is structured to deliver.Bush was not a liberal. I can't believe you need to be told that. Yes, exactly! Because liberal goals are different than conservative ones. The government is fundamentally structured to allow only conservative outcomes. That's why no matter who we elect, we only get conservative outcomes. The answer isn't the election of liberals, it's the election of reformers.

... that the activities of President Bush, who was not a liberal and did not do liberal things, is not going to be an effective counterexample to my thesis that the government structurally favors conservative outcomes. In fact the policy "successes" (in the sense that Bush had agenda items that succeeded in passing) of the Bush administration prove me right.Try to think it through? I'm not asserting a symmetric bias in government, but rather an asymmetric one. The government is structured such that it's far, far easier to enact a conservative agenda than a liberal one.Think it through. If I asserted a structural bias against black people in academics, for instance, instances of high-scoring white people wouldn't be a counterexample, they would be confirming evidence.

quote:

---

The current score is 4 to 1. (AdminPD is also on record saying that you are stinky.)

---

Actually I said there wasn't anything enforceable and it seemed a case of misunderstanding.I also noted that the issue was getting a bit personal.Rule #10 still applies in the Coffee House. Please address the substance of the argument and stop the insulting behavior. Coffee House is supposed to be lighter not ruder.Let the misunderstanding issue go and move on. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

Got there via Forbidden. Link is down below the cartoon and comment(s). What Bernie Said, Part I by William Rivers Pitt, truthout - Op-Ed
Page not found - Truthout What Bernie Said, Part II
Page not found - TruthoutThe previous links to the speech itself, at Bernie Sanders' congress page:
Full Congressional Record Transcript of Sanders Filibuster
There's also available a 124 page Microsoft Word version of the whole speech:
Page not found » Senator Bernie SandersMooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Add newly released "What Bernie Said, Part II" link.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix a link in original version of message. I thought it was correct when I first posted it, but now the URL had disappeared.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Yes, I agree, it is certainly easier to enact a conservative agenda when "liberals" push forward a neo-conservative agenda . . .1. Barack Obama voted FOR illegal wiretapping HR 6304, 2008.2. The Obama administration wanted to open up oil and gas drilling three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history despite grave ecological warnings.3. Obama okays deal with GOP to prolong Bush tax cutsBut Obama is reeeeeeally a liberal. (apparently it is just his repeated and on-going pro neo-conservative actions that are fooling me).Edited by dronester, : added "3"

Well, to be fair what he voted for was to legalize certain future wiretapping that would have been illegal under current law. (Of course you've never been fair in this entire debate, have you?)But this, of course, highlights the difficulty in trying to play "disqualify the liberal" on the basis of votes. For instance liberal icon Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks for buyers of firearms. Barney Frank favors the legalization of gambling and opposed greater federal oversight of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and contributed to the financial crisis.A lot of sausage has to be made in Congress and that means people make deals and vote for things they might otherwise not support to get agenda items passed that they consider much more important. Obama's done a great deal of this and the American people have benefited. Just ask anybody who can now buy medical insurance as a result of the ACA. But that's not what I said, now is it?Again - the fundamental structure of government makes it easier to pass conservative agenda items than liberal ones. One of the ways in which Obama is moving the progressive agenda forward is by tethering progressive agenda items (like the extension of unemployment benefits by another year) to conservative agenda items (like the extension of tax cuts for the rich.)But people like you think Obama can't be a liberal unless he's willing to die on the hill for every single liberal principle, a strategy that accomplishes precisely nothing.

Wrong.

quote:

---

H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal — only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed

---

No webpage found at provided URL: Source
(Of course you've never been fair in this entire debate, have you?)Then again your take on this dopes nothing to absolve Obama. Lets look at everything the ACLU had to see about this bill.

quote:

---

H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

​

H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

​

H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

​

H.R.6304 contains an exigent circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired. By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

​

H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

​

H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal — only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

​

Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

---

Looks pretty neocon to me. Lets look what Bernie has to say on this.

quote:

---

During that campaign, I was very clear that while I opposed the Brady Bill because I felt the handgun waiting period coul be dealt with at the state level, I supported a ban on certain types of assault weapons, which was clearly a national issue...
(I should add that in 1992, '94 and '96, the NRA strongly opposed me)

---

No webpage found at provided URL: Source
Do not paint the liberal icon Bernie Sanders as soft on gun control. There was obviously a strong liberal reason for his stand on the Brady Bill. Where is the liberal stand Obama made on FISA. There is also a huge difference between not supporting and supporting. How are these conservative/liberal issues? Gambling is actually something I would think would have more liberal support than conservative, but it is in no way a conservative/liberal issue.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Right, but that's not a "vote for illegal wiretapping", is it? I don't see how it is. I'm not, Theodoric. I'm making the exact same point you are - looking at a politican's votes in isolation, devoid of context or any sense of how they weighed the trade-offs, doesn't give you a very accurate picture about a politican's beliefs. A lot of sausage has to be made in Congress - particularly in the face of the fundamental, structural issues (like Congress not being a majority-rules body) that privilege conservative outcomes and obstruct liberal ones.

Of course it is. It was a vote to make illegal wiretapping retroactively legal. In other words if the government requested the wiretapping the bill retroactively made all illegal wiretapping legal. No you are not. There was a liberal reason for Sanders vote. (as shown by Sanders own words) You have yet to show a liberal reason for Obama's FISA vote.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well, no. It's a vote to indemnify AT&T (basically) against civil suits stemming from their compliance with government instructions.How does that legalize any wiretapping? You're doing a lot of work with "in other words", there, for instance the somewhat dishonest conflation of civil and criminal courts. I don't need to show such a reason. It's merely sufficient to note that a single vote taken in isolation and out of context can't be considered "disqualifying" for liberalism. Obama doesn't die on hills for liberal principles the way Bernie Sanders does; the result is that Obama has advanced the liberal agenda to a far greater extent than Bernie Sanders ever did or ever will.

Government instructions that were illegal when they were made.lets look at1) Governemnt makes a request of telecom to allow a wiretap that is illegal according to existing law.
2) Telecom facilitates the illegal wiretap.
3) Congress passes a law that says no one can sue for the wiretap, because it is now retroactively legal.How is this not making the illegal, legal. What affect does civil or criminal courts have to do on the legality? The reason the cases were in the civil courts is because the telecoms had allowed illegal activity. You are trying to confuse the issue(poorly I might add) by throwing in this claim of conflation.Also included in the bill is this that I posted earlier.

quote:

---

H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

---

Prior to H.R 6304 this was illegal. Now it is legal. How is that not making illegal wiretapping legal?Now again I ask you to defend your argument. What were the liberal values Obama was advocating for in this vote?You call yourself a liberal and you attack Bernie Sanders? You are an Obama centrist. Bernie is leading the good fight.
You should learn to be proud of what you are. I am.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Sure, but that's something else, now isn't it? How is it? Really?That's really what you're asking? You can't see the relevance of the courts to legality? But that may have already been legal. There's never been a law against American interception of communications outside of the United States; that's the basis of signals intelligence. There's been an argument made that existing law didn't extend that protection to communications between foreign persons and American citizens, and I'm sensitive to that argument, but that argument was not tested in court.And, again - the vote isn't especially relevant. It's not disqualifying for liberals - many liberals were in favor of it and voted for it. And a single vote, absent any context or justification, just isn't enough information. You are, after all, ignoring all the times Obama voted against the telecom immunity amendment. Why is that? Precisely the liberal values he's always advocated:

quote:

---

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law. We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties."

---

But, despite Obama's repeated votes against it, the telecom immunity amendment passed. At that point, it was a question of whether or not the benefits of the bill outweighed the disadvantage of telecom immunity. Obama determined that they did not:

quote:

---

Obama also said the FISA compromise was an improvement since it would put an "inspector general in place to investigate what happened previously gives us insight what has happened retrospectively. So, you know, that in my mind met my basic concerns and given that all the information I received is the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security as long as it has these constraints on them. I thought it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise."

---

So tell me, Theodoric, why is Obama's final vote for the entire bill somehow more diagnostic than his repeated votes against the very provision you're so upset about? Isn't this just another case, in fact, where Obama espoused precisely the very position you wanted him to, but simply refused to die uselessly on a hill for it?

Who is upset? Projecting a little maybe. Why would I be upset? I always knew he was not a liberal.There is the rub. You keep making this claim about dying on some hill. If he were so liberal he would make some sort of liberal stand on something. It isn't compromise when you are always giving in.If you cannot see how this law made what was previously illegal now legal, then there is no longer discussing it with you.If you cannot understand the concept that something was once illegal and the law changed it to legal and then claim that the law did not make the illegal legal then there is no point in discussing this with you.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts