Obama

Crash reports:
Oh, spit that hook out, frog.Here's a hint:
I really, really miss The Good Ol' Doctor Hunter S. Thompson....

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

It's not a "misconstrual." It is, in fact, the only honest way to interpret your words.If that's not what you meant to say, that's fine. But don't try to pretend that you've said anything but exactly what I've quoted you saying, four times now. There's no "mistake." There's no interpretation, here. You've continually faulted Obama for not closing the US embassy, then denied saying it, frequently in the same message.Funny - seems like I said that before. You're right, AdminPD asked us to move on. So why not move on? Why do you insist on bringing it up, often merely repeating words you've already said and to which I've already replied? I can only apologize, you stupid dipshit, for not being an expert on Canadian illusionists. I mean, considering how central that is to Obama's political beliefs - I think it's on page 46 of Dreams of My Father - it's really an incredible failure on my part, you mouthbreathing gobshite, to not have recognized an invocation of the great Doug Henning. Fine - you don't agree. Relevance? Relevance? The UN Security Council determines which wars are legal and which are not. Show me the UN Security Council finding of the illegality of the War in Iraq.You're aware that starting illegal wars opens a country to significant repercussions in the UN, are you not? Has the US suffered those repercussions based on a determination of the illegality of the Iraq War? None of these powers escape being constrained by the Constitution. The "bully pulpit" doesn't exist, and even if it did, it's never been understood to be a way to mind-control people into voting a certain way. Signing statements can't create or obviate laws of Congress, they're just statements of intent about how the executive branch intends to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Appointments and cabinet assembly are subject to a 60 vote requirement in the Senate, which is why over 60% of the Obama Administration remains unstaffed. Negotiations is just that, negotiation - it can't proceed unilaterally, by definition.Answer the question, Dronester - who were the 60 votes in the Senate for cell phone net neutrality? Be specific - name the senators. No, none of you have given even a single such example. And for the third time, Obama is constrained by our system of government; it's not his Constitutional role to hold previous administrations "accountable." That's the role of the courts, who are staffed with Bush appointees. We've agreed that Bush is not likely to get a fair trial from his own appointees; thus, we've agreed that Obama is constrained by our system of government from being able to "hold Bush accountable."Sorry, that's not the role of the President nor a power given to him by the Constitution. You're complaining that he won't do something that, Constitutionally, he's not empowered to do. Funny - when Bush was in office people like you complained about how he exceeded the Constitutional mandate of his office; now that Obama is in charge, your complaint is that he won't. Quelle surprise! Cabinet appointments are subject to the 60 vote supermajority in Congress, you liar. As I keep truthfully informing you, Obama is the liberal president of an inherently conservative system of government.

So, you want a complex of buildings larger than the Vatican to just be picked up and moved. Does Obama have to do it himself, brick by brick, or can he hire someone? Be specific.

LOLYou get the files, the desks, the chairs, the staff, the office equipment from the portion of the building that comprises the Embassy and put them in a couple few of those U-Haul truck equivalents they have there and move them to your new humble intown Embassy.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

And what embassy is that, exactly?

Put down the kool-aid and step away from the keyboard!You have so many leftist talking points in just this one passage I don't know where to begin. So I won't.But have you forgotten that in that part of the world strength is respected, while weakness is scorned and challenged?Your touchy-feely leftist approach may be the exact wrong way to successfully deal with that area.

663,255,000,000 $ of military expenditure in 2009 puts America in first place for money spent on its military
98,800,000,000 $ the second place goes to china notice one zero lessWho is the nr 1 ware mongering terrorist nation of the world that spends as much money on its military then the rest of the world combined.

Did you learn this from the Penguin book of running a Mesopotamian dictatorship by Saddam Hussein or something? Examining the evidence, heavy handed foreign interference isn't exactly respected, either. Indeed - there are many that scorn and challenge it.

My, my, my. My original, one-lined Doug Henning joke was merely intended as light-hearted banter and should not have engendered such a histrionic reply. It seems when you are badly losing an argument, your mental-instability greatly exacerbates. (How proud your parents must be.) I already reminded you that America has VETO power in the UN. With that in mind, what "repercussion" would the US allow the UN to vote for. Be specific.(Since 1967!, what specific "repercussion" has Israel been punished with for its refusal to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242? Be specific.)Lastly, I noted you skipped over naming the UN resolution that the Bush Admin SPECTACULARLY failed to get from the UN Security Council to specifically invade Iraq. You know, the one where the US bribed and threatened other countries (for many, many, many months prior to the invasion in order to get their votes), but ultimately failed. Please specify that one (hint, it's not United Nations Security Council Resolution 1440). Try again, in your contested list of acknowledgements, you "accidentally" left out "executive orders". For the fourth time, address "executive orders." Here for the FOURTH time is specific evidence that Obama continues to willfully and overtly SUPPORT the war crime of torture and has NOT have been constrained by ANY governmental system. Please address the SPECIFICS of the following case this time and not gloss over it with a not-applicable, generic reply.From Message 246, Message 261, and Message 269:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. I over-reached. However, some cabinet appointees like the National Security Advisor, ARE appointed by the President without any confirmation process.In addition, some appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, also without any confirmation process, such as RICHARD HOLBROOKE, special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.Presidency of Barack Obama - WikipediaNone-the-less, my MAIN point (the one that you glossed over) is that Obama broke his campaign promise NOT to hire "minds that led to war" by specifically appointing . . . "minds that lead to war" (RICHARD HOLBROOKE, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Robert Gates, Dennis Blair, Janet Napolitano, and Rahm Emanuel). Even IF Obama was somewhat constrained, it doesn't explain why all, ALL, his choices needed to be war-mongerers. "Constrained by the senate" doesn't mean "MANDATED by the senate to only do their bidding," does it?Obama signed into law more repeals of good gun policies than President George W. Bush. He signed legislation letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks (Obama refused to appeal the decision and the president signed the bill with no comment on the gun provisions).Obama also signed legislation that allowed guns in checked luggage on Amtrak trains. As the recent Gifford shooting has shown, Obama believes America just can't have enough child-deaths from hand-guns. I'd prefer he "die on the hill" for sensible gun control legislation. Dare I say, so would the parents of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green.Obama is not a liberal.

Well, it didn't. It engendered a completely polite and appropriate reply:

quote:

---

I don't know who Doug Henning is.

---

And then you were the one who made the histronic reply:

quote:

---

There's something on the internet called "Google." It acts as a search engine for items that you are unfamiliar with. Try it sometime Pops (unless you prefer being an ignoramus):

---

which I let go, and politely and helpfully replied:

quote:

---

I'm aware. I just thought you would want to know where your wit has fallen flat.

---

to which you completely lost your shit and sputtered:

quote:

---

Then, pity that you couldn't have somehow originally expressed my wit falling flat AND not concede you were an ignoramus.

---

So, this is where we are, you motherfucker, because you responded to my considerate helpfulness with invective. You want to name-call? We'll name-call, fucknut. It seems that when you utterly lose your shit, your memory is the first to go. No matter; your words are all up there to be thrown back in your face. If the UN is not able to vote the Iraq War illegal, then that's one less basis you would have to declare the Iraq War illegal.The Iraq War may very well be illegal. But if the UN is unable to rule so, you can't use the UN as evidence that it is. The legality of the Iraq War may never be settled. But there's as much evidence that it is as that it is not. Please specify that one what? I don't follow. Executive orders are also constrained by the Constitution, obviously; otherwise the President could do anything at all via "executive order." And for the fourth time, Obama is constrained by our system of government; it's not his Constitutional role to hold previous administrations "accountable."[/qs]I did, you merely elided it from your reply. (Try not to quote sentence fragments; it makes you look like you're quote-mining.) Specifically, it's not the President's role under the Constitution to hold previous administrations "accountable." I don't really see how those people are "minds that led to war." Aren't they merely the minds who, unfortunately, followed to war? This is confused and suggests you don't understand the difference between the judiciary and the legislature. Did Obama sign this law, or did his Justice Department simply not appeal a decision? Be specific.And since when is it a liberal principle that people not be able to carry concealed weapons in National Parks? Since when is it an inviolable principle of liberalism that people not be able to ship guns via trains? The things you think somehow betray "liberalism" are really nothing more than your own blinkered views. I'd prefer that the President accomplished things instead of dying on hills. Who are the 60 Senate votes for your proposed gun legislation? Be specific - name the Senators.

Dronestar and Crashfrog,Knock it off! Go to your separate corners and refrain from anymore interaction with each other in this thread.The Coffee House is lighter fare not ruder.If name calling persists in this thread, I will close it before it hits 300.No replies to this admin msg in this thread.Thanks
AdminPD

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration continues the NON-LIBERAL foreign policies of former US presidents such as Bush Jr., et al, in its criminal punishment of the Palestinians while rewarding the criminal Israelis. As the US has been actively doing for the past 40 years, the recent (Feb 18, 2011) VETO in the UN security Council will allow Israel to criminally continue building its settlements on Palestinian ground. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to convince the Palestinian leader to abandon the UN resolution.The two-state solution has been brokered by virtually ALL THE WORLD, even the Arab states. But the Obama administration actively pushes AGAINST the two-state solution (as well as against all human rights in the area).The recent loss of Obama's close dictator friend Mubarak in Egypt, has caused Obama to be rightly concerned. An independent Egypt may no longer be bribed with American "foreign aid", and Egypt may ultimately pressure Israel to stop its criminal policies. This would be horrible news to Obama.Oh well, one way Obama will keep the recession down and keep the US workers employed, . . . by continuing to make illegal weapons such as phosphorus bombs so the Israelis can continue to use them against Palestinian women and children. Obama should NOT cut THAT part out of the military budget, right? zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. Obama administration rejects Israel resolution, using U.N. veto for first time – Foreign Policy Will Obama Use His UN Veto? :: Middle East Forum

You have to understand the political realities. If Obama is to be re-elected he can not be seen siding with the UN and against Israel. That is political suicide. Perhaps Obama can get more done when/if he is re-elected.

You're right.We should encourage the Arabs to slaughter all the Jews.(At least that seems to be what you are advocating.)

Mr. Coyote,Surely you have read my posts. I think my record here on the forum has been consistently "peace-nik-istic."I prefer no one be slaughtered. (Except for war criminals and human rights violators)Thanks for contributing to a political thread which will help keep political posts on the forum in the future.