Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 209 of 314 (597468)
12-21-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rrhain
12-21-2010 3:13 AM


You didn't answer my question: You really think things would have been different if it had been Lamont and not Lieberman?
How the hell should I know? The fact of the matter is, Lamont lost to Liebermann in the election.
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.
I don't recall ever asserting that he was a "good and decent fellow".
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."
And that's really the core of it. 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.
You keep insisting on the improbable Lamont counterfactual, so address mine - do you really think single-payer health care was ever going to pass a Senate with only 57 Democratic votes? I don't think you could have got 30 Senate votes for it. 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.
Tying single-payer Medicare for all to the bill was a poison pill. That was never going to happen, and rather than being an effective "give-away" negotiating point, it would have been a political goldmine for the Republicans. Even as a point to trade away in negotiations it would have killed the bill.
More accurately, you need to remind yourself of what actually happened.
You need to remind yourself of what you actually predicted:
quote:
While the House has passed the bill, it will require two Republicans to switch their votes in order to pass it in the Senate during this lame duck session. The Republicans just released a unanimously-signed pledge indicating that they will not take up anything until tax cuts for the rich are dealt with first.
While Scott Brown has flip-flopped (yet again) regarding this issue and says he might vote for repeal, that isn't enough. Susan McConnell (currently) claims to support repeal but she is holding to the pledge: No vote until tax cuts for the rich are passed. 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...which means we have to start all over again. Since the Democrats lost the House, it won't pass there (only 5 Republicans voted for repeal) and with more Republicans in the Senate, their obstructionism only gains strength.
If it's going to happen, it's going to take a miracle. The Democrats had their chance and they blew it.
"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"?
Have you forgotten the mandate?
Not at all. But the "mandate" is hardly a mandate; it's just a tax penalty for not buying insurance. 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.
The mandate doesn't do any of the heavy lifting in your argument you expect it to. The increase in insurance coverage is primarily coming as a result of the end of adverse selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 12-21-2010 3:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2010 2:16 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 210 of 314 (597469)
12-21-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Theodoric
12-21-2010 7:12 PM


Re: Obama - gets it done on DADT
If not the President, then who the hell controls them?
Frighteningly, nobody at all, for the most part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Theodoric, posted 12-21-2010 7:12 PM Theodoric has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 314 (598612)
01-01-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by dronestar
12-22-2010 9:39 AM


Re: "Progress"?
Now tell us, has Obama ever FOUGHT the GOOD FIGHT FOR liberal causes?
Yes, repeatedly - which is why we have the Lily Ledbetter Act, the American Care Act, the repeal of DADT, the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, reform of the nation's financial industry, and the Supreme Court's first Hispanic and (well, maybe) lesbian justices.
What Obama has not done, for the most part, is die on hills making futile stands for impossible-to-achieve, fringe liberal principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by dronestar, posted 12-22-2010 9:39 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2011 2:31 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 234 by dronestar, posted 01-03-2011 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 314 (598623)
01-01-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Rrhain
12-31-2010 2:16 PM


Do you really think Lamont wouldn't have fought to overturn DADT?
Who knows? And why does it matter? The truth of the matter is that Leiberman won the election, not Lamont, so Lamont was not there in the Senate to take any action at all on DADT.
The question is not "Lieberman vs. Lamont", that's just a red herring you're raising because you can't speak to the central point, here. The question is "Leiberman with his committee seats and as part of the Democratic caucus vs. Lieberman given the brush-off and pushed into the Republican party", the latter being exactly what Obama had the foresight to prevent. Do you really think Lieberman-as-a-Republican would have taken any action at all on DADT except to vote against it? Answer the question.
It's called a "metaphor," crash. Look it up.
I know what a metaphor is, Rrhain; I'm wondering if you do. Do you think "good and decent fellow" is a metaphor for the argument I'm making? How, when I've repeatedly told you that I'm not rehabilitating Lieberman, I'm rehabilitating Obama?
We don't have health care reform.
In fact, we do. This is the year, now, that health insurance companies are subject to a draconian restriction on how much revenue from premiums has to be spent on medical care; a restriction so profit-eroding that insurers in Maine have sought to have the requirement temporarily suspended.
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?
In US politics? Absolutely. Unlike the classical perspective on negotiation, Rrhain, negotiations between the US Senate and the President don't happen in closed rooms. Striking a position that you expect to negotiate away has costs in politics that it doesn't have in the boardroom or out in the casbah.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Obama accomplished more towards health care reform than any other liberal president. You think his strategy is naive and misguided. I submit that his strategy produced results and your strategy led to the defeat of Hillarycare in the Clinton administration. That, of course, is the conclusion you arrive at when you understand the actual practical import of the American Care Act instead of simply swallowing the lies of Firebaggers, wholesale.
Because nobody fought for it.
Amazingly, the Constitution has no provision for passing legislation because you "fight for it" really, really hard. Wishing as hard as you can doesn't get you even a single Congressional vote under our system of government. I know that's hard for Firebaggers to understand but as soon as you lose your idiotic and naive "Green Lantern" model of how the government operates, you'll see what I'm talking about.
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.
People who probably won't make claims were already insured, for the most part, because they knew they faced rescission if they only picked up coverage just as soon as they intended to make claims. The mandate is meant to prevent those people from leaving insurance rolls, not to convince a vast untapped market of healthy, uninsured people to sign up.
No such market exists. Those people are largely mythical- the uninsured are primarily people who were refused insurance due to medical conditions or expensive claims, people who are eligible for S-CHIP or Medicaid in their states but unenrolled (but, of course, would become enrolled immediately upon seeking medical care), or people who are temporarily uninsured as a function of a change in their employment status (usually moving from one status to another, say student to employed, before employment-based coverage kicks in.)
More than 5 million uninsured Americans are uninsured because they're uninsurable; they have immediate or incipient medical needs that will surely result in large claims. Those are the people who can no longer be turned away in the individual insurance market as a result of the American Care Act, and to act like that's nothing but a "giveaway" to insurance companies is deeply, deeply stupid. Don't make the mistake of making perfect be the enemy of good; perfect is not an outcome we're allowed to have under our system of government. Sorry, but it's not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2010 2:16 PM Rrhain has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 314 (598624)
01-01-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rrhain
01-01-2011 2:31 PM


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.
Are you even reading this thread? 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? That those outcomes tend to be progressive aims far more often than they tend to be conservative ones? And that therefore, regardless of who is in the office and how hard they fight, we get conservative outcomes, because the Constitution has no "Green Lantern" provision where the President can simply will legislation into law?
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?
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. For instance - "charges"? precisely what court, Rrhain, do you believe is empowered to address a charge of "deserving of being covertly assassinated"? Wouldn't it, in fact, be a lot worse if such a court existed?
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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2011 2:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2011 3:25 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 227 of 314 (598635)
01-01-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Hyroglyphx
12-31-2010 9:44 PM


Re: Hilary - less liberal
But really isn't it a debate on semantics to some degree?
No, it's a debate on how a 60-vote supermajority requirement in an anti-representative body results in the privileging of conservative outcomes and the suppression of progressive ones. Semantics has nothing to do with it - the debate is on the structure of government. Dronester and Rrhain believe that the Constitution has a Green Lantern provision where the President can will legislation into law simply by really, really wanting to.
All I know is that Obama is not "change we can believe in," he's the status quo repackaged.
I respectfully disagree. Repealing DADT wasn't the status quo. The elimination of rescission and adverse selection by insurance companies isn't the status quo. Reforming Wall Street wasn't the status quo - see the Obama administration's rapid and decisive action on fraudulent foreclosures by banks. Fraudulent foreclosures were the status quo. The Lily Ledbetter Act certainly wasn't the status quo.
There's just this problem we have in our government, where nearly everything you'd like the President to do is subject to an effectively unconditional veto by the 4 million residents of Kentucky, who, as you might expect, are pretty conservative in the aggregate.
He's certainly not a classical liberal (few, if any, Democrats are).
Well, how so? Do you think Obama doesn't believe in pay equality? That he doesn't believe in individual freedom? That he doesn't believe in the regulation of business to protect the communal trusts, like the air, land, and water?
Dronester and Rrhain believe - genuinely believe - that Obama believes in the rights of insurance companies to exploit the sick, the right of the government to kill and torture literally anybody it wants to for fun, and the right of powerful interests to exploit the powerless with no recourse. You clearly don't. I, too, am hoping to have a discussion more on the terms of our axis of disagreement as opposed to Dronester's, because (and I never thought I would say this to Nemesis Juggernaut!) you're far more reasonable than either of them.
I'd genuinely like to explore your contention that Obama is genuinely a status quo kind of guy. My contention is that, yes, we've not gotten change on every single issue we demanded - but not for want of Obama's desire to change things, rather because we have a government structured to make that change all but impossible under most conditions. There are just too many steps in the Senate where a Senator like Mike Enzi, who chairs the Senate's Budget Committee (and thus has expansive power of the purse) despite representing only the 500,000 residents of Wyoming, can unilaterally block the President's agenda. Don't you remember when Dick Shelby all by himself blocked the appointment of 70 nominees, simply because he was opposed to a Pentagon bidding process the President wasn't even involved in? Do you understand that about the Senate? That, effectively, every single Senator has the same veto power of the President?
How on Earth could we possibly get universal, single-payer health insurance through a Senate with 100 vetoes? How can a country with 101 Presidents possibly be governed?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2010 9:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2011 5:28 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 239 by xongsmith, posted 01-04-2011 2:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 314 (598653)
01-01-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Rrhain
01-01-2011 3:25 PM


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.
And then what happened as a result of all that blame? The complete end to Republican obstruction? Clinton steamrolling a progressive agenda through Congress?
Now that DADT has been repealed don't forget who first originally enacted it and when. It was enacted during what most people consider Clinton's "conservative phase", as though Clinton was Picasso and had a "blue" period or something. The achievements and issues of the Clinton administration post-"Contract with America" conservativism were the conservative achievements Clinton could successfully pass through a Republican Congress that, blame or no, had 100 veto points with which to block any legislation they didn't like.
Your strategy of negotiating brinksmanship? Clinton tried that. You're right that the Republicans took almost all of the blame for the government shutdown. I remember when it happened. The problem was - it didn't matter for shit. All of that blame had absolutely no effect on what Republicans were prepared to allow the President to do. 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.
Why believe that it would have been any different this time?
Do you understand that everybody has agreed to this non sequitur of yours and pointed out that it is a non sequitur?
Really? "Non sequitur"? You're saying that the fundamentally skewed limitations on Presidental power specified by the Constitution and the bylaws of the Senate aren't relevant to a discussion of what outcomes the President has failed to achieve and why? That seems pretty stupid. And to my knowledge you're the first person to describe the argument as a "non sequitur"; 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.
Yes, that's the point - our system of government, where a resident of Wyoming is more important than a resident of New York City, makes it a lot easier to enact a conservative agenda than a liberal one. It's the easiest thing in the world to enact torture for terrorists. Single-payer health care, on the other hand, is an impossibility.
You mean there aren't any assassination orders issued by Obama?
No. A military strike against a military target isn't an "assassination", and it doesn't require any particular trial or charges to be brought.
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?
When was the trial where the millions of citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tried and sentenced to death? When did General Isoroku Yamamoto stand trial in the United States? Be specific.
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. That's no more an "assassination" than the 400 or so justified police shootings every year. Being an American citizen isn't a magic vest of protection when you're engaged in open armed conflict against the police or military.
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.
Indeed. And Obama has not ordered the unilateral death of any individual, merely the apprehension where that is safe, or the neutralization where that is not.
As you correctly identify the fact that it is impossible for the President to legally order the assassination of any individual (by longstanding executive order), we can conclude that the President has not legally ordered the assassination of any individual.
Not even Bush tried that.
Nonsense. Did you forget how the Iraq war started?
quote:
At approximately 02:30 UTC, or about 90 minutes after the lapse of the U.S. 48-hour deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq, at 5:30 am local time, explosions were heard in Baghdad. According to The Pentagon, 36 Tomahawk missiles and two F-117 launched GBU-27 bombs were used in this assault. The targets were high-level Iraqi governmental officials, including Saddam Hussein himself, and were based on specific intelligence which led the U.S. government to believe it knew his movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war_timeline
Manhunts have long been accepted military objectives; "wanted dead or alive" isn't just a feature of the Old West, it's a military doctrine that has existed since The Art of War.
Are you saying Billy the Kid was not a US citizen?
Since when was he found to be a "military target engaged in military action against the US in a military area"?
Why would he need to be "found" to be anything at all? When were the millions of citizens residing in Nagasaki and Hiroshima "found" by any court of law, American or Japanese, to be "engaged in military action"? In what trial was Isoroku Yamamoto found to be engaged in military action against the United States?
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? Look, you may find the President's unilateral authority to order the military disturbing. To my mind it's better that such authority is invested in an elected president as opposed to a military leader. But regardless of your thoughts, Obama did not write the Constitution, establish the military, or invent the War on (Some People Who Use) Terror. 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.
That's never been considered "assassination."
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?
The Posse Comitatus Act would render such actions within the borders of the United States illegal. 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. Obama didn't invent that. The Constitution does not require (or allow) judicial review of the President's determination of military targets. You may not like that outcome, but that's merely another example of how the structure of our government is biased against progressive outcomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2011 3:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2011 2:37 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 231 of 314 (598665)
01-01-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
01-01-2011 5:28 PM


Re: Hilary - less liberal
What I mean is he spends like every other American president, and even worse.
Congress has the power of the purse under our Constitution. Only about 15% of 2010's Federal budget was discretionary - that is, was "optional" or could have been reduced. The vast majority of the budget is nondescretionary, and represents spending to ends that Congress is legally committed to - like the enormous spending on two foreign wars.
Anyway, I don't recall Obama's campaign promise to be a Federal cheapskate. Deficit hawkery is a Republican obsession.
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.
Recessions are exactly when you want to ramp up Federal spending, to overcome the shortfall in demand. Are you aware exactly how much US currency just disappeared when the housing bubble popped? About 1.5 trillion dollars just evaporated. It's gone! That's why we're in a recession and nobody has any money - over a trillion dollars of it just up and vanished.
The appropriate response to that by the government is pretty simple - print 1.5 trillion extra dollars and spend them on things.
The time to balance the budget is in the good times, when private industry is roaring and the economy is growing. That's the time to balance the budget because it doesn't result in people starving to death when the government stops patronizing their businesses. In a recession, the government is the only one with any money left so it's important for the government to spend spend spend to people keep their jobs and the businesses communities rely on don't have to close up.
The economy is priority number 1.
Agreed, which is why the government should be racking up huge deficits. Balancing the Federal budget doesn't help the economy, it harms it. Naturally, the middle of a recession is the exact time Republicans chose to attack Obama on the deficit. (Why do you suppose that is?)
Right, because that worked so well to stimulate the economy when Bush tried it.
Tax cuts aren't stimulus. That doesn't create money, that just moves around money that was already there. The Obama stimulus, on the other hand, actually was effective, as even conservative economists were forced to admit.
Still taking cues from Bush's failures, Obama signs on with TARP and bails-out companies.
Companies employ Americans. How are you going to get people out of a recession when they don't have jobs?
Obama has a huge list of czars
"Czars" is just a name for a president's advisor, and Obama has less of them than Bush had. They're not actually czars of anything. Don't get fooled by conservative talking points, you were doing so well.
He didn't get rid of it, he just revised it marginally.
How would Obama "get rid" of a law passed by Congress? Be specific.
Most of this is simply an extension of Bush's policies repackaged.
Well, no. Most of these are laws Congress passed that the President - any president - simply doesn't have the unilateral authority to reverse. Nothing Obama can do can make the PATROIT Act not be Federal law anymore. There's no retroactive Presidential veto.
Everyone else are power-hungry, career politicians first, citizens second.
Why do you think Ron Paul isn't "power-hungry"? He ran for President, didn't he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2011 5:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 235 of 314 (598913)
01-03-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by dronestar
01-03-2011 11:45 AM


Re: Obama: Pro Torture
For the "many-th" time, Obama has not withdrawn all troops in Iraq.
I never said that he did.
I note you didn't respond to the 100,000 mercenary troops, PERMANENT baseS, or MASSIVE US embassy.
I did actually respond to this, and my response was to ask you why Obama should close the "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq. As you'll recall, your reply was to deny that you ever said such a thing, but here you are saying it again.
We can go over it as many times as you like - why should Obama be expected to close the "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq?
AdminPD: I've noticed that sometimes you misconstrue an opponents position and are unwilling to adjust when corrected.
AdminPD is a liar. And in this case you appear to have misconstrued my position. Now that I've corrected you are you willing to adjust?
Obama Administration Worked With Republicans To Kill Bush Torture Probe
Unwillingness to allow Republicans to turn hearings on war crimes into a referendum on the perceived weakness of Democrats is a widespread position among liberals, even if you don't agree with it. I'd prefer it if the Bush Administration was called to account for their conduct but unlike you I'm aware of the structural reasons that such a thing is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by dronestar, posted 01-03-2011 11:45 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by xongsmith, posted 01-03-2011 6:29 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 238 by dronestar, posted 01-04-2011 12:29 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 240 of 314 (599035)
01-04-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Rrhain
01-03-2011 2:37 AM


Clinton wasn't a liberal.
Right, and that's my point - there are enduring structural obstacles to executive power and Congressional action such that nobody can "really" be a liberal.
And you utterly avoided my point, I see. Answer the question - what was the result of the Republicans getting all that "blame" for the government shutdown? Was it the complete defeat of their obstruction of the Clinton agenda? Or didn't they just double-down on the obstruction and force Clinton into a conservative agenda in his second term?
Answer the question.
Nobody here has implied let alone stated that the Executive writes legislation.
Well, no, actually several people have - Hyrogliphix did, Dronester has, Onifire has. They've all blamed Obama for not taking actions that, Constitutionally, aren't delegated to the executive. I mean didn't you read:
quote:
Remember the problem he had with the Patriot Act? He didn't get rid of it, he just revised it marginally.
Did Hiroglyphix write that, or didn't he?
You continue to pretend that Congress acts in a vacuum.
And you, Dronester, Oni, and Hiro continue to pretend that Congress acts at the behest of Obama.
Do you even know who I'm talking about?
Anwar Al-Awlaki, right? Commander of Al-Queda forces in Yemen? You know, the organization that believes in targeted assassinations of civilians regardless of citizenship or location? (His legal defense, I'm sure: "Oh, I didn't mean me.")
If the Obama Administration is so sure of their justification, why haven't they gone to court?
But Anwar Al-Awlaki had his day in court.
Are you seriously saying that if the President decided tomorrow that you should be killed, then you would have no recourse?
Asked and answered, Rrhain. Posse Comitatus Act, etc.
Are you seriously trying to say that 19th-century actions are still justified today?
Oh, so you admit that it happened - that Obama hardly invented the notion of a government manhunt. Wasn't that kind of my point?
We are a nation of laws and due process must always be observed.
Well, by all means, what law should be observed, here? Which court of the United States is empaneled to determine military targets? Be specific.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Or do they count for nothing?
Do they? Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is given the authority over the determination of military targets.
Again - you may dislike that the Supreme Court has absolutely no authority in this regard. Perhaps it's a loophole that the President is given sole authority in the determination of legitimate military targets. But, Obama is hardly the person whose fault that is.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
And unfortunately the Constitution disagrees with them. The President is given sole authority to determine military targets under our constitution. The Supreme Court is given no power of review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 01-03-2011 2:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 241 of 314 (599036)
01-04-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by xongsmith
01-03-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Obama: Pro Torture
So if I say my uncle is vastly, staggeringly, obscenely overweight, that means I am saying he should be killed?
No, but when you list the "MASSIVE US embassy" in a list of other things that should be taken out of Iraq, it's fair to conclude that you're also saying that the embassy should be taken out of Iraq.
you lost that one.
Not to anyone who can read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by xongsmith, posted 01-03-2011 6:29 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2011 5:35 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 242 of 314 (599041)
01-04-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by dronestar
01-04-2011 12:29 PM


Re: Obama: Pro Torture
For the "millionth" time, technically no, you did NOT say "withdrawn ALL troops in Iraq".
So, technically, you admit that you're arguing against positions you know I'm not taking.
But when you keep bragging about Obama's list of "accomplishments", there is an attempted implication, by you stating "Obama has withdrawn troops," that Obama did good on his campaign promise to END the Iraq war.
I think it's a good start. Of course, nothing short of an embassy closure seems to please you.
There are still 50,000 combat troops, 100,000 mercenaries, a dozen permanent bases, and a MASSIVE "embassy" that is certainly not being used as an embassy.
There's hundreds of military troops and mercenaries in Germany and Japan, as well. Some degree of military presence is always going to exist in Iraq because that's what it means to have invaded. We're not closing our bases in Germany or Japan, ever, and we're certainly not going to close the US embassy in Iraq. Why on Earth would we?
BTW, with courtesy and professionalism, she extended a generous offer to debate this item with you.
I never asked her to "debate" anything. I asked her to substantiate her accusations with evidence. She demurred with her grandstanding "offer" of a "Great Debate" topic - a smokescreen, in other words, because she made accusations she knew she couldn't support in the guise of her admin account.
Shameful. Honestly "liar" is really the gentlest possible term I could have used to describe her conduct in the matter.
But only because Obama is ACTIVELY forwarding a neo-conservative agenda and has reneged on his oath to the office.
Is there a response to my point in any of this? I don't see it. Would Republicans derail a Bush war crimes hearing, or not? Would such a hearing inevitably result in the full legal exoneration of Bush - given that Bush stacked the relevant courts with his own cronies - or not?
If a fair and honest and most importantly useful trial is an impossibility, why not deny Republicans the chance to grandstand and move on? Because you want Obama to die on that hill, too? That's just not how the kid rolls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by dronestar, posted 01-04-2011 12:29 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by dronestar, posted 01-05-2011 4:36 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 244 of 314 (599232)
01-05-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by dronestar
01-05-2011 4:36 PM


Re: Obama: Pro Torture
The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is that America didn't immorally or illegally invade Germany or Japan.
Well, in point of fact we immorally invaded both of those countries. The legality aspect of the Iraq war is a conversation we've already had and settled (you lost.)
The comparison is apt, and the point is that the continued presence of troops isn't inconsistent with the end of the war - the wars in Germany and Japan have long been over and yet our troops remain.
This was explained to you before.
This has all been asserted by you, yes. I declined to believe you because you're a liar.
Without any concern about what the Iraqi's want or need, you alone declare, for the Iraqis, that they should see Obama's non-serious micro-step toward "justice" as "a good start."
To the contrary, liar - I did not assert, in fact, that the Iraqi people should do or say anything at all. I don't presume to dictate the attitudes of Iraqis or indeed of anyone besides myself.
If you didn't have a callous indifference to Iraqi's mass suffering, you might consider that since America's illegal and immoral invasion, today there are over one million Iraqi civilians dead, over four million Iraqi refugees, two million widows, five million orphans, inadequate electricity, inadequate clean water, children with chronic malnutrition, etc..
All of that is true and it's a substantial moral failing of the president who started that war, knowingly under those false pretenses - George W. Bush.
Those three words encapsulates every vile spin you have written in support of Obama's criminal actions in this thread.
I'm sorry but is there a point to this ludicrous, boring grandstanding? You continue to avoid very direct and simple questions. Why should Obama be expected to close our "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq? Why should Obama uniquely be expected to close US military bases in Iraq when you've not demanded that in Japan and Germany?
When are you going to stop this idiotic grandstanding and answer questions? Do you think you're fooling anybody at all?
If you were raised with any sort of basic fairness and humanity, you would instead demand your representatives stop CAUSING harm, stop criminal activity, instigate legal procedures to punish war criminals, demand the US pays for reparations for damages and lastly pay full compensation to the victims of aggression.
All that stuff is impossible. You're the one who insists his politicians die uselessly on hills. I'd prefer they just get work done.
So, regarding torture, you are basically saying: "Since Obama can't contain the epidemic, Obama might as well drive the infected monkey to the airport."
I fail to see how the analogy is apt. Regarding torture, what I'm saying is that structural obstacles in our system of government prevent Obama from doing much more than he's already done - restore the anti-torture guidelines of the Army Field Manual. He's the President, not Green Lantern.
In adherence to the Convention Against Torture, Article VI of our Constitution requires criminal prosecution of torturers. And because Obama took an oath to defend the constitution and laws of the USA, he ONLY needs to enforce the law by appointing a prosecutor to indict all who violated the law.
You've already agreed that such a prosecution would be useless, and would result only in exonerations and grandstanding. So why bother? Stop dodging the question and address it. What purpose is served by prosecutions that would only legally exonerate Bush and his cronies?
Obama is a liberal as it comes. Unlike the four of you he's also a pragmatist. This discussion would be a lot less boring if you could find some way to actually address that point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by dronestar, posted 01-05-2011 4:36 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by onifre, posted 01-06-2011 1:04 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 246 by dronestar, posted 01-06-2011 4:08 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 314 (599368)
01-06-2011 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by dronestar
01-06-2011 4:08 PM


Re: Obama Sends Infected Monkey on Tour
Still no response to my post (597519) "Obama's net neutrality betrayal"?
I've responded to the argument, Drone, to the extent that your post contained one. I'm not going to respond to your every single post no more than you're going to respond to mine. Is there some part of that material that you feel has gone unaddressed? Please repeat it if so.
Instead of sampling just a few items from my bountiful cornucopia of evidence (as if this forum was some Country Kitchen Buffet), why not specifically address ALL my points Pops?
Because most of them are nonsense grandstanding, and not worthy of reply.
If you were less selfish, and showed the slightest understanding/empathy/experience from the Iraqis POV, you wouldn't praise Obama for doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of the victimized Iraqis by boasting that his nothingness is "a good start."
If you insist. Why don't you help me get started on that and tell me what great efforts you're making on behalf of the Iraqi people? I mean, you run an aid agency devoted to their needs, right? Oh, you don't? Well, you must be on the phone with your legislators every day trying to get them to reverse their stance on the Iraq War and the treatment of detainees, right? Oh, what's that, it's just easier to blame Obama and do nothing? Well, surely you must have donated substantial sums of your income to Iraq aid groups? Oh, you haven't done that either?
Besides demanding that others show such incredible reverence for the Iraq people - many of whom, you know, have accepted money from the US and then engaged in the murder of volunteer US aid personnel and soldiers - what exactly are your great accomplishments in regards to the welfare of the Iraqi people? Be specific.
You say "impossible," yet you still have not shown me where it has been engraved in stone and disseminated by Moses
To the contrary - I've shown you the direct Constitutional language and Senate bylaws that stand in the way of those actions. Why not address it? Why not name the 60 Senators who were prepared to vote for criminal sanctions against George Bush and Dick Cheney? Be specific - list the Senators by name.
You mean like the work that will stop Child Torture?
Are there 60 votes for that in the Senate? What bill, specifically? How will the United States regulate activities by other governments in other countries? Be specific. Who are the 60 Senators, and what bill did they say they would vote for?
It seemed Xongsmith eloquently stated, at the very least, Xong and I BOTH want to see Obama get his hands dirty fighting the good fight.
No, you want to see him fight the hopeless fight. You would prefer Obama be Leonidas, and make a brave last stand. I would prefer he be Aristides, and actually defeat Persia.
Obama is not a liberal.
Utterly wrong. Obama is a completely conventional American liberal, pursuing conventional liberal priorities where he can, in the face of strong structural obstacles against progressive outcomes. When are you going to address this position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by dronestar, posted 01-06-2011 4:08 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by dronestar, posted 01-07-2011 4:56 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 314 (599369)
01-06-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by onifre
01-06-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Obama: Pro Torture
But as I pointed out before in this thread, Kofi Annan said it was illegal - that makes it illegal from the PoV of the Security Council, which is the determining factor.
Kofi Annan doesn't determine legality for the Security Council, so him saying it was an unauthorized invasion doesn't "make it illegal" from anybody's point of view but his own. Moreover the Security Council has not ever ruled on the legality of the Iraq War - indeed it has not ever even been asked to do so.
That's implicit evidence for the legality of the war, at the very least.
That should settle the issue.
Sorry, but no. It may be true that the War in Iraq is an illegal one under international law, but you need more evidence than one statement from Kofi Annan. He doesn't have the authority to make that kind of binding determination. If he's the best you have, then sorry, you've failed to meet the burden of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by onifre, posted 01-06-2011 1:04 PM onifre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024