I asked him to support his thesis by naming specific examples of comparably reckless, deluded behavior by Liberals as prominent/powerful as Romney, McConnell and Limbaugh.
A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent
For me, the Affordable Healthcare Act really trumps everything else he's done, good or bad. It's not even close to the system that I would have asked for but he pushed it through which is more than any democrat since FDR was able to do.
Every piece? No, I think most critics have a few issues where they feel a less compromising position would be best. Obviously you have to work with the other party to get things done.
Except that Romney's goals, to the extent that he has any distinct from "get elected," are all things that both the unified Republican front and the more conservative wings of the Democratic Party are more than happy to push through. Romney would have about as much ease as Dubya had during his heyday.
Big companies that have lots of wealthy employees will always be overrepresented on a list of donors grouped by the donor's company. That does not imply conspiracy.
Respectfully: your opinion [Looks like a depression to me.] is not a determining factor. When the real GDP starts contracting in a noticeable way, then a lot more people may consider it a depression.
It’s time to start calling the current situation what it is: a depression. True, it’s not a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s cold comfort. Unemployment in both America and Europe remains disastrously high. Leaders and institutions are increasingly discredited. And democratic values are under siege.
graphnerd: Can we all agree to drop the whole 'FTFY' thing here? There are a lot of great points here, but I come to metafilter to escape the obnoxiousness of the rest of the Internet.
Finally, what are your options? Mitt 'Double Guantanamo' Romney? Ron "I Swear I didn't write that" Paul? Paul, that sudden hero for those who would scrap the entire country for the few this bill affects wants to get rid of fractional reserve banking and force the country back on to the gold standard. His crackpot views notwithstanding, he's also for cutting every dollar of humanitarian aid the US gives out. So no sending the Navy in to help Tsunami victims or condom distribution in Africa.
Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.
(Also, Romney would repeal Obamacare on "Day One"). So like his failed experiment with pro-choice, he's done with it.
Oh, please. Obama and his campaign crew will be ringing that particular gong nonstop, because it will hurt Romney, horribly, among the ultraconservative wing of the GOP.
Unless you're interested in gay rightsGawd, this thing... again.
In the grand scheme of things, Paul is really no better or worse than Obama on this front.
Unless you're interested in gay rights
Obama, as the head of the executive branch, and not a member of the legislative branch, cannot just get rid of it, but he can stop enforcing it. Which he has.
If you have three different terminal diseases, you don't cure any of them. You go to hospice and hope to die comfortably.
Former PM Kevin Rudd didn't have control of the Senate (upper house), so had to negotiate with the opposition party regarding his carbon trading scheme. Unfortunately for him, a leadership spill in the opposition party resulted in a more right wing opposition that completely opposed the legislation, so it didn't pass, and Rudd's refusal to call a double dissolution election to force it through fatally damaged his credibility, particularly with progressive voters, many of whom shifted their first preference to the Greens in the next election.
Former PM John Howard didn't have a majority in the Senate either when he was introducing the GST, and had to negotiate with the Democrats (no relation to the American party) which insisted on various changes, such as exempting things like fresh food and education from the tax. Somewhat unfairly this lead to the demise of the Democrats, who were replaced by the Greens as the third party in Australian politics, and who forced current PM Julia Gillard to make various amendments to the carbon tax legislation passed last year.
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. ... The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" within their districts. USAM 9-2.001.
In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are "invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.
The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.
For example, Barack Obama signed the repeal of DADT into law, while Ron Paul believes that the Constitution gives individual states the authority to outlaw, as he calls it, "gay sodomy".Did you perhaps forget Ron Paul's vote on DADT? How convenient of you.Good on Paul. Now when Obama starts talking about Texas having the right to outlaw "gay sodomy", maybe you'll have a point.Or perhaps forget Obama's position on gay marriage?“I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.”
For example, Barack Obama signed the repeal of DADT into law, while Ron Paul believes that the Constitution gives individual states the authority to outlaw, as he calls it, "gay sodomy".
Or perhaps forget Obama's position on gay marriage?
And the full quote is:
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards
which seems to be more of a matter not allowing hard cases to make bad law (unless you REALLY want to invite the Federal government to start making determinations as to what is acceptable in the bedroom).
So yeah, I'd say they are about equal.
Perhaps educate yourself?
“My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.” I’m not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed [in Oregon] and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate. I would not punish doctors if it’s prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law.”
The Rabid Right is so hard-up for a scandal, they tried to make a Halloween party for the kids of veterens into something!
…there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible. Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity. “An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.”
Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department.
Is everybody forgetting that Obama came into office with vast majorities in both the House and the Senate? If he had shown a little leadership, and played a little hardball, he could have accomplished great things. He simply chose not to.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Of course, the Constitution and posse comitatus already made such protections. The NDAA doesn't expand the power to detain, in reality, it probably narrows it.
My opinion? Everyone takes politics way too personally. And they talk too much, too.
What The Fuck Has Obama Done So Far?
The guy said he was going to kill himself so they put him on a suicide watch. Then they took him off it. That's not torture.
There are two fundamental differences between the parties in which all others are rooted. The first one is structural: In the Democratic Party power flows upward and in the Republican Party power flows downward. The second is attitudinal: Republicans perceive themselves as insiders even when they are out of power and Democrats perceive themselves as outsiders even when they are in power.
The automatic filibuster is not a reality. It is precisely the opposite: an unconstitutional political fiction
How many suicide watches relate to high-profile military detainees, though, and offer obvious opportunities to make political hay, gain political leverage and potentially weaken what should be strong political coalitions of mutual interest?
There is only one word to describe the treatment of this model prisoner: sadism. Glenn Greenwald has been following the case closely and has two disturbing must-reads here and here. We all hoped that under Obama, brutal treatment of military prisoners and lies about it would end. In this case, they haven't.
Remember, that guy personally directed his Secret Service to have one couple arrested just for peaceably wearing t-shirts critical of him to a public event at the Capitol.
Obama, in contrast, let Tea Party protesters openly brandish guns in protest during the health care town hall debates. And while there may have been arrests during the XL pipeline protests, there's no indication those were specifically directed by the executive or involved a disproportionate response (that is, those protesters likely wanted to be arrested for tactical reasons).
In what specific way is it "unconstitutional"? The Constitution specifically says that each house of Congress is allowed to determine its own rules.
Putting DADT on this list strikes me as a tad bit, well, weird. Up to the eve of passage of the repeal amendment, advocates of the n-dimensional chess theory of Obama's tenure claimed it to be an albatross that would burn political capital best saved for the second term. Now they claim it as a vindication of Obama. While Obama openly praised the multi-decade long campaign to force DADT repeal in his HRC speech, his press office repeatedly attacked gay rights advocates for their activism on the issue.
Fundamentally, repeal of DADT wouldn't have happened at all if it were not for 20+ years of protests that kept the issue in the public eye, pressure on congress, and legislative allies who kept putting it up for a vote, starting under Bush. You don't wait for the votes, you make the votes. And that's a lesson, I'm sorry to say, that Republicans have owned since the Reagan years.
"not required by the constitution" would be a better term
For example, Barack Obama signed the repeal of DADT into law, while Ron Paul
Putting DADT on this list strikes me as a tad bit, well, weird. Up to the eve of passage of the repeal amendment, advocates of the n-dimensional chess theory of Obama's tenure claimed it to be an albatross that would burn political capital best saved for the second term.
I don't think he is equal to Paul, I have already said in this thread Paul is worse
(2) Talk to me about how they're equivalent on this issue when Obama starts opining that the Constitution gives individual states the authority to outlaw "gay sodomy".
It was going to be a permanent presence much like we have in other nations where we maintain bases. The Iraqis were open to this as well but negotiations fell apart because of demands that US troops be answerable to the law of the country they would be stationed in. Wikileaks provided a major role in breaking up negotiations
You can't be serious.
I think it's kind of silly to think that the Iraqis needed to the leaked cables to realize that US troops had committed atrocities there, btw. It was more news to Americans, I'm sure, and most Americans don't care, sadly enough.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks' release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.
Why do you think an argument from authority is valid? I'm basing my interpretation of the bill on what the bill says.
The only thing that's 'muddled', as Greenwald put it, is whether American citizens captured abroad are covered under the section.
and is as much as it might be interpreted to allow that
More importantly, the bill was gonna pass, veto or no veto. US house reps gonna vote against it and fuck up money to districts and soldier's pay? Get real. Overriden in a heartbeat.
And just to repeat another sentence for emphasis:
You do realize that the bill passed with a veto-proof majority, yes? That a veto would have been symbolic and meaningless?
The Republicans would still need Democratic votes to override, the Republicans don't magically get everything they want.
Don't kid yourself. There are huge corporations writing big checks right now to stop SOPA. The popular outcry is just convenient cover. And some version of SOPA is still going to pass.
enjoys crafting compromises more than he likes arm twisting…
...probably to his and the country's detriment
I don't know why this should be a surprise for a guy who got on the map by saying "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." That's a big reason why I voted for him for President.
"The guy [Bradly manning] said he was going to kill himself so they put him on a suicide watch. Then they took him off it. That's not torture."
But Romney wants to raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich.
It also helps to remember that a Democratic majority doesn't mean very much unless there are 60 or more "good" Democrats. Having 58 Democrats, when that 58 includes Lieberman et al., doesn't do much of anything.
No, my thesis is that lesser known inmates get treated quite poorly by everyday standards in military brigs every day--it's not typically considered torture, and it doesn't typically get as much scrutiny.
Mind you, by "bipartisanship" I am referring to "both sides honestly giving in and compromising, rather than turning every damn discussion into a red-side/blue-side grudge match". It's what Obama was hoping to achieve, and it's what I want too. The reason it didn't work, though, is entirely because the Republican's didn't want to play that game and retreated further into the grudge match.
So yes, "hyperpartisanship" got us Obamacare, but TRUE bipartisanship -- in which the Republican hardliners got the hell OVER themselves and honestly sought compromise -- would have gotten us something better.
1) the more cooperation between republicans and democrats, the more bills they can pass.
2) How do we know those bills will be good?
like Ben Nelson quite frankly don't give a shit what the party in Washington has to say. He only cares about the party in his home state. You are not going to arm twist someone like Joe Lieberman who has his own local power base. You are not going to arm twist someone like Joe Lieberman who has his own local power base.
« Older A Philadelphia program is bringing families, airpo... | John Lennon's cats... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt