Obama

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

I would guess this has to do with Insurance companies and Big Pharma guilding the state of our healthcare system.

---

What does that have to do with anything? If the people wanted it, they'd get it. There were people running who were gunning for single-payer, universal coverage. Why weren't they elected? Why did we have people screaming, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"?

quote:

---

Now, there are some people who like to pay higher insurance prices for a good return on their money

---

But that's just it: We're not getting a good return on our money. We spend more and we get less.

quote:

---

Also, union workers don't see the benefit of universal healthcare since theirs is one of the best insurances in the US.

---

If you had good healthcare, why would you want to give it up for the "reform" that was instituted?

quote:

---

I have republican friends, I have concervative friends, they all have children, ALL of them want their kids to have a good education in the best schools. It seems to be what every parent wants for their child.

---

You do understand the difference between what people say and what they do, yes? Of course, they're going to say that they want a good education, but then you look at their actions and their justifications for those actions and you find that they don't actually believe that at all. When you ask them to provide bonds for the funding of schools, to pay taxes, to give so that districts outside of theirs can be improved, they suddenly start to pull up short.No, they don't want a good eduction in the best schools.

quote:

---

This was not up to the people, the normal, everyday, middle class worker.

---

When it came time for them to elect officials who would regulate the industry and ensure that those jobs weren't lost, they caved into the magic of Reaganomics.

quote:

---

Also, unions are still alive and well.

---

Alive? Yes. Well? Please.Exactly how much of the workforce is unionized? Compared to 10 years ago? 20? 50?

quote:

---

But my point is simple, the average, middle class person, whether rep or dem, wants the same basic living conditions: Good job, affordable healthcare, and a good school for their child to attend.

---

Again, you do understand the difference between what people say and what they do, yes? That when you ask them to justify why they are doing what they are doing, it suddenly becomes clear that they don't actually mean what they say, yes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

I wondered how you were going to try to turn this around. All that time to think of the spin, though, and that's the best you could do? Disappointing.

---

Hmmm...you don't actually respond to the point and you say I'm the disappointment. OK. If that's what you need to tell yourself.

quote:

---

Hey, wasn't there some controversy about Lieberman back in 2009?

---

Ah, so you're all about surface. It doesn't matter about any of the other things Lieberman did or the means by which he carried out his actions, so long as the immediate surface result is what you want, then that's fine by you. Never mind the long-term results, never mind the precedents established, so long as he does one good deed, that makes up for everything else.Let's see...he was the one who killed the health reform bill, making it only an insurance reform bill, by killing Medicare buy-in.This "reliable liberal" stated, "I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year and takes action to prevent the estate tax from rising back to where it was."He wants to privatize Social Security.So yes, he will fight for the right of gay people to serve in the military...because he doesn't want the war to end.The favors of the fallen, we do not need. Do you really think if he had bowed out and let Lamont run without his interference that Lamont wouldn't have also championed the rights of gay people to serve?

quote:

---

Frequently good leadership is simply a matter of putting the right people in place to do the right things.

---

OK...let's go with that. Exactly how did Obama manage to put Murphy and Hoyer in the House?

quote:

---

The most effective progressive presidency since FDR

---

Oh, that's precious. You really believe that, don't you?Hint: That legislation was passed during a time when the administration was not ravingly right-wing does not equal "progressive." Indeed, a lot of legislation was passed despite Republican obstructionism.I don't think passing a bill that kills Social Security can be called "progressive," do you? Even if it manages to extend unemployment benefits for a short time, it's still dismantling the New Deal, which isn't exactly "progressive."The insurance reform bill is also not "progressive." It was the same conservative plan that was being kicked around back in the 90s when Clinton tried. Again, you seem to be caught up in the surface and are refusing to look at the deeper results. It isn't "healthcare reform." It's insurance reform with nothing but huge giveaways to the insurance companies. They're already raising their rates.Guantanamo is still open.
Even more egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment rights are enshrined.Hell, Obama has called for the ASSASSINATION of an American citizen without trial or even formal charges being written up.Not even Bush tried that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Oh, by the way, crash, DADT hasn't been repealed. What was passed was the backdoor deal of Obama's that requires certification by the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense that the change in policy can be enacted without trouble. It then gies to Congress who has 60 days to decide if they want to interfere. And all of this must be done by the end of March 2011.With a Republican House, how likely do you think Congressional obstruction will be?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Imagine my disappointment.

---

Hey, I can't control what you post. If you're disappointed in your response, step up your game.

quote:

---

You act like all Lieberman did here was get a road or a state park named after somebody.

---

No, I act as if a single act does not absolve him from being a piss-poor excuse of a Senator. You didn't answer my question: You really think things would have been different if it had been Lamont and not Lieberman?You seem to have a serious case of "doesn't kick puppies." That is, so long as we can show that he doesn't stoop so low as to kick puppies, then that is sufficient to claim him as a good and decent fellow as if that is the only criterion upon which to judge. As if one must be all-bad if one is not all-good.I'm reminded of a time when someone was trying to find something good that Bush had done and someone had pointed out the set-aside of some waters as a National Monument. On the surface, that seems like a good thing. But the reality is that he did it under the American Antiquities Act of 1906 rather than the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. By declaring it a National Monument rather than a Marine Sanctuary, there aren't any real penalties for violating it and the Executive can make any declaration regarding its use as desired.Marine Sanctuaries, on the other hand, are run by the Secretary of Commerce with fines up to $120,000 per day per violation.In short, Bush declared a protected area he doesn't have to actually protect.It is not enough to look at the surface, especially if you're only going to focus on one thing.

quote:

---

Rrhain, he ended decades of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed services

---

Well, no. No, he didn't. What he did was co-sponsor a bill that put in the craptacular back-door deal that Obama "negotiated" as a stand-alone measure. DADT has not been repealed. And no, I don't mean that because Obama hasn't signed it yet, it hasn't been repealed. I mean when Obama signs it, DADT will still be the law of the land. The bill that was passed simply states that DADT will be repealed if and only if:1) The President, Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs of Staff all certify that repeal of DADT would not result in significant harm to the Armed Services.AND2) After such certification, Congress has 60 days to weigh in and decide what to really do, including stopping the repeal.AND3) Both 1) and 2) must be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2011.With a Republican majority in the House and obstructionist Republicans with yellow-dog Democrats in the Senate such as McCain, you really think they're just going to sit by?DADT isn't repealed. Not by a long shot.

quote:

---

But I do know that Lieberman being in a position to do so was directly and solely the result of Obama's foresightedness in preserving Lieberman's connections and seniority in the Democratic coalition

---

Bullshit. You really think this wouldn't have happened if Lamont were in instead of Lieberman? That Susan Collins wasn't involved? He isn't the chair of the Armed Services Committee. Carl Levin is.

quote:

---

But I do know that if you're arrived at the point where the assignment of committee chairs are now a matter of inviolable progressive principle, you're truly at the point where futile last stands on principle are more important than actually governing.

---

Lieberman isn't the chair of the Armed Services Committee. He's the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. You know...the one that's been eroding our Fourth Amendment rights. The one that hasn't bothered to investigate Obama's call for the ASSASSINATION of an American citizen without any due process of any kind, let alone a trial or even judicial oversight.Part of the reason that the stand-alone bill was able to be voted on so quickly is because it didn't go through committee.

quote:

---

Because it's objectively true.

---

Except it isn't as has been previously shown. You really need to start responding to points rather than automatic gainsaying.

quote:

---

You can act like the death of public option health care was the death of All American Liberalism

---

Not at all. I act like those who don't fight for universal, single-payer health care, those who start from a negotiating position of taking it off the table, who insist upon major giveaways to insurance companies that do not contain costs cannot be called "liberal."

quote:

---

The ACA allows millions to have insurance who would not otherwise have it.

---

Sorta, kinda, almost. The ability to buy insurance doesn't help if the rates are so high you cannot afford it. It's why COBRA is such a joke. And let's not forget that the insurance reform has pretty much killed the right of women to have an abortion.

quote:

---

DADT is dead

---

No, it isn't. It is still very much alive.

quote:

---

and need I remind you that it was repealed with precisely the exact strategy you claimed was a non-starter?

---

More accurately, you need to remind yourself of what actually happened. DADT was not repealed. Instead, a series of hurdles must be overcome, one of which is Congressional review which now sits in a House controlled by the Republicans and a Senate which will be run by conservatives even though the Democrats technically have the majority of seats.

quote:

---

Now you're predicting the demise of Social Security as a result of the employment benefits extension deal, and I have news for you - your track record as a swami isn't very good.

---

Really? You mean batting 1.000 is a bad thing?

quote:

---

To recap: if it's such a giveaway, why did insurance companies spend millions to block its passage?

---

Because "business as usual" is always preferred. Because despite the good things that are in the bill, the bad things more than outweight it. You are again looking at surfaces, focusing on the shiny bit while ignoring everything else. Have you forgotten the mandate? The regulation of the industry is still set at the state level, not a national level. That's what the insurers already have: The ability to gouge you depending upon where you live.What the insurance industry lobbied against was single-payer, universal coverage. And lo and behold! It was immediately withdrawn by Obama in a back-room deal while he stood behind his lectern and said that he wished he could have it.

quote:

---

How is it a "giveaway" when the millions of new customers are precisely the customers insurance companies didn't want to insure....

---

Have you forgotten the mandate?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

The President is not given the power to do so under our form of government.

---

Last time I checked, the President is the head of the Executive branch and that the Department of Justice was part of the Executive.Ergo, the President has the right to investigate and prosecute crimes.Why are none of the people who advocated and carried out torture being brought to trial? Why are Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld still walking the streets and not in a jail awaiting trial if not being sent to the Hague?Why has Obama expanded the human rights violations by calling for the ASSASSINATION of an American citizen without any due process of any kind let alone a trial or any judicial oversight?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

How the hell should I know? The fact of the matter is, Lamont lost to Liebermann in the election.

---

You do realize that your second sentence contains the answer to your question, yes? There was an election which means that we got to hear what the candidates positions were on various subjects. And despite the fact that people kept saying that Lieberman was "with us in everything except the war," it turned out that he was actually against quite a lot. Why on earth was anybody surprised to find out that he was campaigning for McCain?Do you really think Lamont wouldn't have fought to overturn DADT?

quote:

---

I don't recall ever asserting that he was a "good and decent fellow".

---

It's called a "metaphor," crash. Look it up.

quote:

---

I think someone who does take single payer off the table and who does bring insurance companies to the table, because passage of any HCR whatsoever would be impossible without doing so can be a liberal and can do more for the progressive agenda than someone who insists on dying on the hill for any and all liberal "principles", with the ultimate result that absolutely nothing is accomplished.

---

Except he didn't "accomplish" what he set out to do.We don't have health care reform. We have insurance reform. What we have is a massive subsidy of insurance companies. We're still going to be paying way too much for way too little.

quote:

---

do you really think single-payer health care was ever going to pass a Senate with only 57 Democratic votes?

---

No.Do you really think that was the point? When you know you are dealing with a body that will never, ever go along with you on anything you are trying to work for, do you really think it's a good idea to "meet them halfway" as a starting position? Do you go out of your way to be absolutely silent on the benefits of your desired plan? Do you let the other side be the one to run away with the rhetoric and fearmongering?Or do you fight for the very campaign promise you made? Even though you know you're probably not going to get it, do you start the process acting like you have every confidence in the world that you are?

quote:

---

Single-payer didn't even pass a majority in the House; I don't think Tony Weiner's single-payer bill even came up for a vote.

---

Because nobody fought for it. Nobody got their asses in gear to try and make it happen. They immediately folded as soon as there was any pushback.Why do you think those teabaggers were out there shouting, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"? That's because people like Medicare. Do you really think things would have been the same if proponents had actually fought for it rather than leaving all the talking points to Fox?

quote:

---

"McCain is going to do everything he can to block the bill and I very much doubt that there will be a vote on it before the end of the term.." Is that what you call "batting 1.000"?

---

The Defense Authorization Bill was voted down, if you recall. The Senators that said they were going to vote for it voted against it.So yeah, I'm doing pretty well.

quote:

---

But the "mandate" is hardly a mandate; it's just a tax penalty for not buying insurance.

---

Which is a giveaway to the insurance companies which will not reduce costs.

quote:

---

The mandate is there to prevent people from dropping their insurance until the day before they need to make a claim, not to convince some vast untapped market of uninsured-but-healthy people to purchase insurance.

---

That's not why the insurance industries fought for it. It's there to make sure that the insurance companies have a whole new market of people paying for insurance who probably won't make a claim in order to offset the regulation that they cannot drop people from the rolls should a claim be made. Of course, insurers are still allowed to jack your rates if you do make a claim and make it impossible for you to afford decent insurance due to your "pre-existing condition," but they can't just kick you out.The only way a mandate works is if the entire risk pool is gathered together in one group. (*gasp!*) That's single-payer, universal coverage!And you still haven't bothered to answer my question, so let me try again:How can someone who has called for the ASSASSINATION of a US citizen without charge let alone a trial or any form of judicial oversight be considered "liberal"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

What Obama has not done, for the most part, is die on hills making futile stands for impossible-to-achieve, fringe liberal principles.

---

Make no mistake, I am very much happy that it is Obama who is president rather than McCain. But since when is a healthcare program that more than 70% of the public actually supports (single-payer, universal coverage) a "fringe" liberal principle?Since when is a tax policy that more than 80% of the public actually supports (letting the Bush tax cuts expire) a "fringe" liberal principle?And most importantly, and something you have still refused to respond to in any way, since when is refusing to call for the ASSASSINATION of a US citizen without charges let alone a trial or any form of judicial oversight a "fringe" liberal principle?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But since when is a healthcare program that more than 70% of the public actually supports (single-payer, universal coverage) a "fringe" liberal principle?

---

​

Since there weren't 60 votes in the Senate.

---

So you respond to that by crawling under a rock, lying to people saying that you want it when you have already told the opposition that you won't request it? Why not get out in front and make sure that the public knows that he is fighting for a program that they want? Why allow Fox to create an astro-turf group to ambush Congresscritters at "town hall meetings" by not having any response team to counteract the lies? Why not call them out as the lies they are?Even if it wasn't going to be, make sure that everybody knows that it was the Republicans who killed it. Do you not recall what happened when the government shut down under Clinton? The blame went to the Republicans for their obstruction.

quote:

---

Do you understand that my thesis is that there are some outcomes Obama cannot achieve regardless of his will to do so, under our system of government?

---

Do you understand that everybody has agreed to this non sequitur of yours and pointed out that it is a non sequitur? Yes, we all know that the Executive does not create the law and rather the Legislature does. However, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the Executive has tremendous influence over the Legislature (in fact, is Constitutionally mandated to submit items to the Legislature) and can help guide legislation through Congress.No, he doesn't will it into existence. He has to work for it. And on many issues, Obama has punted.

quote:

---

I'm not responding to this point because it's nonsense. If you think what Obama is doing is "the assassination of US citizens without charges", then you're fundamentally ignorant of the issue.

---

You mean there aren't any assassination orders issued by Obama? I know I haven't mentioned the case I'm talking about so I'd love to know exactly how you know it is nonsense. Now, I'm assuming that you understand that it's the big one that I'm referring to, but it would help if you could provide more of a counterargument than "nuh-uh!"For example, when was the trial by which the person to whom I am referring to was convicted of a crime and thus subject to punishment?

quote:

---

For instance - "charges"?

---

Terrorism. What did you think?

quote:

---

precisely what court, Rrhain, do you believe is empowered to address a charge of "deserving of being covertly assassinated"?

---

You see my point, but it appears you are being distracted by the shiny object rather than paying attention to the substance of the matter. As a rule of law, there is no way to order assassination. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have the right to kill people (since we do still allow the death penalty), but it does mean that there is no way to legally say that agents of the government have the right to unilaterally kill somebody outside of the battlefield or as the conclusion of a trial whereby charges are proven and punishment is determined.So the fundamental problem is that there has been no charges, no arraignment, no prosecution, no defense, no judgement, no oversight of any kind and yet, Obama seems to think it is OK to order a US citizen to be killed on sight. It would be an outrageous violation of Constitutional rights if the punishment were a $100 fine, but to call for the death of someone is a sign of a supreme failure in someone who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it, in fact, be a lot worse if such a court existed?

---

Yep, distracted by the shiny object. The point is that this is a double failure. I agree that the government needs the ability to punish people (though whether or not the death penalty is appropriate is another matter). Assassination is without merit but how can you call for any penalty of any kind without trial? We are a nation of laws and the president does not get to send assassins out on his whim.Not even Bush tried that.

quote:

---

I think the idea that the President, who commands the military, can't order a military strike against a military target engaged in military action against the US in a military area simply because the target may hold a technical US citizenship is a little ridiculous.

---

Thus showing you are...how did you phrase it?..."fundamentally ignorant of the issue." Since when was he found to be a "military target engaged in military action against the US in a military area"? Last time I checked, your bedroom isn't a "military area." When was it determed that he engaged in "military action"? Who made the decision that he was a "military target"? How can he possibly defend himself against this when the government has set itself to his death?

quote:

---

The idea that US citizenship should act as a magic circle of protection against the US's own bullets and bombs is very much a fringe position.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? So if the president were to decide, just because they didn't like what you posted here, that you should be killed in your own home, that agents of the government are authorized to track you down, break into your home, and kill you where you sleep, you wouldn't think that your rights as a citizen of the United States might have something to do with it? That it would be...oh, I don't know...wrong to do so?You seem to have the silly notion that I'm talking about being in the middle of a firefight. Again, as you put it, you are "fundamentally ignorant of the issue."Do you even know who I'm talking about? If not, don't you think it would behoove you to find out before you open your yap?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

And then what happened as a result of all that blame? The complete end to Republican obstruction? Clinton steamrolling a progressive agenda through Congress?

---

Clinton wasn't a liberal.Neither is Obama.

quote:

---

Now that DADT has been repealed

---

No, it hasn't.

quote:

---

As you'll recall, what they did was paralyze the House and Senate with trumped-up impeachment proceedings to derail the last year of the Clinton agenda.

---

Which the public was sick of and nobody on the Democratic side took advantage of.

quote:

---

Really? "Non sequitur"?

---

Yep. Nobody here has implied let alone stated that the Executive writes legislation. Everybody has acknowledged, some quite directly, that it is the Legislature that does so. Some of us even quoted the Constitution to you in order to show that we do know that fact. And yet here you are, repeating that complete irrelevance. You continue to pretend that Congress acts in a vacuum.

quote:

---

Dronester, Xong, and Oni have simply pretended the argument has not been made or tried to give idiotic "counterexamples" of conservatives getting the things they want.

---

Which proves my point: They all understand that it is Congress that makes the laws but that the President has the ability to influence Congress and thus get his agenda through. He doesn't "will" it into existence. He has to work for it.And on many issues, Obama punted.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You mean there aren't any assassination orders issued by Obama?

---

​

No. A military strike against a military target isn't an "assassination"

---

So who am I talking about and where is your evidence that this is a "military strike against a military target"? Strange how I can't find any DoD orders for such. Of course, it isn't the military who is after the target, so that's hardly surprising.So why is the President sending non-military government officials to kill somebody outside of the battlefield?Do you even know who I'm talking about?

quote:

---

and it doesn't require any particular trial or charges to be brought.

---

Strange, I thought the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land. Something about no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." How "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." And note, that's something that the Constitution affords everybody when dealing with the United States, not just citizens.If the Obama Administration is so sure of their justification, why haven't they gone to court? Why did they send non-military government agents to assassinate somebody outside the battlefield?Do you even know who I'm talking about?

quote:

---

When was the trial where the millions of citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tried and sentenced to death?

---

Good question. There is a legitimate claim to be made that the US is guilty of horrendous war crimes in the bombing of Japan. The fact that we got away with it doesn't mean we get to do whatever the hell we want.

quote:

---

The Obama administration's position is that an armed soldier in a firefight against forces of the United States can't simply hold up a US passport as protection from getting killed.

---

And where is your evidence that the person I'm talking about is "an armed soldier in a firefight against the forces of the United States"? Last time I checked, sleeping in your bedroom is not an example of a "firefight against the forces of the United States."That's the entire problem behind Guantanamo: We know that the overwhelming majority of people we're holding there never took up arms against us. But we're refusing to do anything about it because to do so would mean we fucked up royally. If we're so certain that these people were actual enemy, then we would be forced to grant them trial as required under our law regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. But Bush refused to do so, came up with this fake term of "enemy combatant," and Obama has continued the charade.And now, going far beyond what Bush had ever done, he has ordered a non-military government agency to track down somebody and kill him despite the fact that there is no evidence of any kind that he is "an armed soldier in a firefight against the forces of the United States."Are you seriously saying that if the President decided tomorrow that you should be killed, then you would have no recourse? That you wouldn't immediately demand some sort of judicial restraint? That we as a society have absolutely no recourse from such? That the President actually can order people killed on his whim? Adm. Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, testified to Congress that the President has such power.Do you believe him?At least under Bush, there had to be a modicum of evidence that the person posed "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." Now, that level was a bunch of bullshit as there was no judicial oversight. The Fifth Amendment precludes such. But under Obama, even that threshhold has been done away with. There is no evidence that the person I am referring to poses any such threat, and yet he has been marked for assassination.This is in direct contradiction to already established legal precedent, or have you forgotten about Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, when the SCOTUS concluded that the US Governemnt does not have the right to even imprison an American citizen as an "enemy combatant" without trial.

quote:

---

And Obama has not ordered the unilateral death of any individual

---

Yes, he has. The New York Times and the Washington Post have both reported on it. Do you even know who I'm talking about? What's his name, crash? If you're so certain that he hasn't, then you can name the person I'm talking about and show me how he meets your criteria.

quote:

---

merely the apprehension where that is safe, or the neutralization where that is not.

---

Incorrect. The orders are to kill. Not, "if he fights back, you are authorized to use deadly force." Kill on sight.

quote:

---

As you correctly identify the fact that it is impossible for the President to legally order the assassination of any individual

---

So why has the Obama administration ordered the assassination of three American citizens?

quote:

---

Did you forget how the Iraq war started?

---

Not by assassinating American citizens.

quote:

---

Are you saying Billy the Kid was not a US citizen?

---

Are you seriously trying to say that 19th-century actions are still justified today? And at any rate, he had been charged with an actual crime and the claim of "Wanted: Dead or Alive" is not an actual call to go out and kill him but rather, if you go to apprehend him and he puts up a fight, then killing him is acceptable.Last time I checked, sleeping in your own bed isn't putting up a fight.

quote:

---

Why would he need to be "found" to be anything at all?

---

Because your Fifth Amendment rights require it and the SCOTUS has so ordered it. Or does the law not mean anything anymore?

quote:

---

Where in the Constitution do you find that it's the role of the judiciary, and not the President in his capacity as commander of the military, to determine what is and isn't a legitimate military target?

---

The Fifth Amendment.Or does the Supreme Court not get to interpret that anymore? The Hamdi court found that the government doesn't even get to imprison a US citizen, let alone kill them, without trial.Doing otherwise is commonly called a "war crime."

quote:

---

Look, you may find the President's unilateral authority to order the military disturbing.

---

Al Gore said it well: And it seems the SCOTUS disagrees. Even SCALIA disagrees.Or does the SCOTUS not have the power to interpret the Constitution?

quote:

---

But regardless of your thoughts, Obama did not write the Constitution

---

Of course not. He's just the one breaking it and the one who really ought to know better seeing as how he's a professor of Constitutional law.

quote:

---

A necessary consequence of the President's authority to determine military targets is that he can determine that Us citizens fighting against the government in warzones are legitimate military targets for army manhunts.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.Or do they count for nothing?

quote:

---

That's never been considered "assassination."

---

quote:

---

That's never been considered "assassination."

---

And since when was he a military target? Hmm? Just because the President says so? Since when do we ever take any person's word for anything, no matter who they are? We are a nation of laws and due process must always be observed.

quote:

---

When you're in a warzone, engaged in military action against the forces of the United States, there has never been any legal doctrine to suggest that you have any particular protection from being killed by the US military just by virtue of having a US passport.

---

First, since when is your bedroom a warzone?Second, since when was it shown that there was any "military action" of any kind taken?Third, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The Fifth Amendment means something. That's the entire reason why we are housing all those people at Guantanamo: It was an attempt to get around the Fifth Amendment. Since they weren't within the US borders, Bush claimed that the Constitution didn't apply. But the thing is, the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to just citizens nor does it apply to just the borders. The word used is "person." That means anybody and everybody that the US government deals with has those rights.But the Supreme Court specifically pointed out that the US government cannot do so to its own citizens. They are not even allowed to imprison you, let alone kill you, without due process. And that means a trial.

quote:

---

The Constitution does not require (or allow) judicial review of the President's determination of military targets.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

What I mean is he spends like every other American president

---

You act like that's a bad thing. It's what got us out of the Depression and we seem to have not learned that lesson. The government needs to be spending more.

quote:

---

He's placed the country in more recession than any other president in history

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Did we just skip immediately from 2001 to 2009 with no intervening governance? I seem to recall that the economy collapsed under a different president and never recovered. You do realize that the largest portion of the debt that we have is due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that if we hadn't engaged in them, we'd be in much better shape, yes?It seems you have some big misconceptions about TARP. First, it was signed by Bush. Second, it has provided a positive return to the government. But then again, that's how you get out of a recession: Government spending.

quote:

---

an unprecedented and obscene amount.

---

Huh? Did the presidency of Bush simply not happen?And you forget: You get out of recessions by government spending. The problem with the stimulus wasn't that it was too big.It's that it was too small. The only reason we're not in a deeper recession than we are is because of governmental spending. The reason that we're still deep in the one that we are in is because the stimulus wasn't big enough.Did we learn nothing from the Great Depression?

quote:

---

As if Bush wasn't bad enough, he's spent 3 times as much, in the middle of one of the worst recessions in American history.

---

First, you're incorrect.Second, that's how you get out of recessions. Did you learn nothing from the 30s?

quote:

---

That was just about the worst time to go off and splurge like a teenager with a credit card.

---

First, the insurance reform bill that was passed will actually reduce the deficit.Second, the way you get out of a recession is by spending money. Did you learn nothing from the Great Depression?

quote:

---

Without a strong economy no country can take care of its citizens. The economy is priority number 1.

---

And since healthcare is one of the leading problems facing the economy, don't you think it would be a good thing to reduce costs in that area?

quote:

---

I highly doubt that Obama is intentionally sabotaging things to destroy the country. That's silly.

---

Indeed. I don't know where crashfrog gets this vision of me thinking Obama is sitting in the Oval Office, rubbing his hands together and gleefully cackling like something out of a Dudley Dooright cartoon.But he is beholden to the insurance companies, does think he has the right to order the assassination of people, and is fighting for the right of powerful interests to exploit the powerless with no recourse.I don't think he's getting an orgasm from it, but that is the effect of his policies and it is telling that he only seems to find a problem when people point this out.

quote:

---

Stimulus package of $787 Billion. Right, because that worked so well to stimulate the economy when Bush tried it.

---

First, Bush's "stimulus" was not the same. Bush gave a fake "tax cut." Obama spent money on incentives.Second, it did work. You're not in a depression, right? The way you get out of a recession is by spending, not cutting. Did you learn nothing from the 30s?

quote:

---

Still taking cues from Bush's failures, Obama signs on with TARP and bails-out companies.

---

Which actually worked. It will give a positive return. Now, what we're left with are the big banks who will still control too much and have too little oversight, but the collapse of the banking industry would be far worse.

quote:

---

Obama has a huge list of czars

---

Talking point alert! Let's not pretend you chose to hype the word "czar" for no reason.

quote:

---

some of which are every bit as threatening to free speech and freedom of expression and privacy than the Patriot Act

---

Yep.

quote:

---

Remember the problem he had with the Patriot Act? He didn't get rid of it, he just revised it marginally. Things like extraordinary rendition are still in place.

---

Yep. Indeed, Obama has now claimed the right to assassinate US citizens without charge.

quote:

---

Continues the War in Afghanistan. What's the goal? At what point do you win, and at what point do you lose? How do you even win?

---

Yep. And it continues to bleed our treasure. The reason our economy is in as bad a shape as it is in is because Bush had to go to war. Twice. Of course, to act as if we really cared about the deficit and stopped our military presence there would mean we're "soft."

quote:

---

That's the funny things about bickering between Dems and Reps... They're flipsides of the same coin.

---

Oh, please. Not this "pox on both your houses" nonsense. You really think we would have gone to war in Iraq if Gore were president?

quote:

---

Obama's approval rating among Democrats is even worse than Bush's approval ratings for Republicans.

---

Indeed, but his approval rating is better than Reagan's was at this time.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.