Obama

I'll be honest, I don't know who Doug Henning is. I'm not but you are. I'm seriously not going to reply to every line of your messages - nor, in all likelihood, to every single one of your posts. I'm excerpting the arguments which are most pertinent to your general point and addressing them. Your irrelevant grandstanding, or quibbling about minor points, is going to be ignored simply for brevity's sake. We're not here to write novels. And my response is the same - Obama is constrained by the nature of his office, by the nature of Congress, and by the nature of modern American politics into those outcomes. This is grandstanding, not something that actually happened. Except that this is grandstanding, not something that actually happened - the FCC didn't "enshrine" anything, they merely declined to force net neutrality rules on private cell phone networks because there's not yet any identified need for them. And these decisions were made by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, not by Barack Obama. What would I respond to, Dronester? The notion that Obama "conspires with the FCC" is insane. It's literally nothing but paranoid nonsense. How would he "conspire" with an executive branch regulatory agency?I'm not going to respond to delusions. So what have you done to show your sympathy, besides call me and Obama racists? Be specific. I asked you before but you dishonestly eluted question that from your reply:

quote:

---

Crash:Besides demanding that others show such incredible reverence for the Iraq people . . .

---

What's your explanation for not including the totality of that sentence? Is it because you have no answer to the question? But you've been shown to be wrong in every case. Like I said:

quote:

---

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 address the argument, Dronester? Can you? I confirm that I am asking you about what great measures you've taken on behalf of the Iraqi people that justify your histronic grandstanding. I trust you're similarly confirming that you have no reply to the argument I've made about Obama's actions being constrained by political and legal reality.

If you had an argument namecalling would hardly be necessary. But I am. I've amply demonstrated that Dronester has made the claims he has; Dronester has amply demonstrated it. If Dronester wasn't saying what I said he said, he'd have an answer to Panda's question about what he really was saying. But as we saw, he didn't. If I'm really out in left field about Dronester's complaint that Obama hasn't closed the "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq, why are so many people - so many more people than you, Oni, and Purpledawn, who all have your own reasons not to agree with an argument I'm making - emailing me to tell me how right I am?How can so many people be getting it wrong? Did Dronester say:

quote:

---

Obama has NOT withdrawn ALL troops from Iraq. He has re-labeled "combat-troops" with "counter-insurgency personal." 50,000 US troops are STILL in Iraq. I note you didn't respond to the 100,000 mercenary troops, PERMANENT bases, or MASSIVE US embassy.

---

quote:

---

The US "embassy" in Iraq is the largest in the world, the size of the vatican, and is not going anywhere.

---

quote:

---

The ridiculous size (the embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York!) of the US embassy is clearly NOT for diplomatic reasons. This is yet another Bush Jr. illegal and immoral hegemony policy that will continue under the Obama Administration

---

or not? How can you not "continue a policy" of diplomatic relations and embassy presence in Iraq except by closing the embassy? But why would Obama do that?Did Dronester write those words or didn't he, Xong? Do words have meanings in English, or don't they?

That's even stupider. There's a perfectly adequate building already built for the US embassy in Iraq. Why tear it down and build a smaller one? Why not, instead, use less of it, which is what the Obama administration has done?If that's what you really wanted, you wouldn't be complaining. Ergo, what you want is for Obama to close the US embassy in Iraq altogether.

This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.What could possibly be your evidence for such a claim?

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. When Panda asked you precisely what you were saying, which is a very simple question, you dodged. You don't think that Iraq has greater diplomatic needs than, say, Germany? You continually fault the American people, and indeed everyone here but yourself, for not evincing sufficient regard for the American people. But a large and well-protected embassy complex seems like an ideal basis from which to conduct humanitarian work in a country racked by sectarian violence and an organized and armed resistance. It's a hell of a lot safer than the Hatian tent cities where US aid workers are being raped and murdered by the hundreds due to a complete lack of any physical security. I'm aware. I just thought you would want to know where your wit has fallen flat. The reply is the reply I've already made; Resoulution 1441 was the resolution that legally authorized the War in Iraq. Conditional cease-fires inherently authorize the resumption of hostilities when their conditions are violated; that's what it means to be "conditional."Show me the UN Security Council action that ruled the Iraq War illegal. Just as you'll make that determination for me. If I feel you've made that determination in error then I will repeat points and ask for your specific attention. I invite you to treat me the same way.Your impression seems to be that if I don't reply line by line, I've somehow conceded something. That is incorrect - I will specify which points I'm conceding. Oh, I see - it's not a dodge when you do it. I reject that, unfortunately. I think you've made the record clear that the Iraqi people are nothing more to you than a rhetorical cudgel. How disgustingly opportunistic of you.You're not a good person. But you haven't, because there's no such example. There are no situations where the President's powers are not constrained by the Constitution; literally everything he can do is subject to regulation by our country's founding document. Nixon's formulation that "if the President does it, it is by definition not against the law" has been rejected by all legal scholars and courts, but I'm surprised to see you embrace such a sweeping view of Presidential power. Not unilaterally. Genachowski's appointment was subject to Congressional approval of Executive branch appointees, and this necessitated that Obama appoint someone who could get 60 votes in the Senate.There's that 60 vote constraint, again. Who were the 60 senators prepared to vote for cellular phone net neutrality, Dronester? Be specific; name the senators. Who were they? But you've already agreed that Obama is constrained by our system of government in this regard; the constraint is that Presidents can only be impeached by Congress, not by other Presidents; and that individuals are tried not by Presidents but by courts. And we've agreed that the Federal courts widely staffed by Bush appointees are not very likely to return guilty verdicts against Bush, now are they?So, again, Obama is constrained by our system of government such that Bush administration officials could not help but be exonerated by the judges they themselves appointed.But you know all this, because you've already admitted it. You've already conceded that line of argumentation so why repeat it?

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.

And what embassy is that, exactly?

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.

How does it "preserve their existence" to keep cinnamon and newspapers out of the Gaza Strip?Do you think maybe the reason they continue to have so many enemies is because they do their level best to piss off all of their neighbors? Do illegal settlements "preserve their existence" or do they inflame sentiments against Israelis?Don't get me wrong - their neighbors are just as bad. But to describe the actions of Israel as uniformly being out of the interests of self-preservation is just plain stupid. Israel does as much out of self-dealing and self-aggrandizement as out of self-preservation. Keeping parts to build rockets out of the Gaza Strip? Sure, that's self-preservation. Keeping parts to build greenhouses out of the Gaza Strip? That's an effort to protect Israeli agribusiness from competition and subject Gazans to illegal collective punishment.

Hey, just wondering how that "bully pulpit" worked out. Republicans are lining up to pass Obama's jobs bill and he has unanimous support by his own party, right?Remember back when I was so stupid that I said that the chief limitations on Obama's power and the passage of progressive agenda items were structural issues that privileged the status quo and conservativism, and not Obama's personal betrayal of progressive principles and refusal to fight for stuff? LOL! Current events sure proved me wrong!Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Despite imprecations to the contrary - and despite nonsense about "epidemic monkeys", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean - the debt ceiling deal had no entitlement cuts.Also why does Dronester advocate the end of diplomatic relations with Iraq and the closing of our embassies there?