Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a hard pill to swallow, but Obama and the Dems just can't lay down and take it.
They have to be able to fight Rove, the Koch's and all the swiftboaters.
No repeat of the smears John Kerry got....

This is going to get ugly, but all is fair in this case.

Agreeing to go into the fight with his hands tied would be a mistake.

After winning the election they can advocate for knife-only fights.

system, I advocated that Democrats abandon the practice. People were hyperventilating about how stupid that would be, essentially giving the republicans free reign to do whatever they wanted. I countered with: Let the republicans show their true colors even if it results in hardship for a short time. Voters will abandon republicans in droves because they know they can't trust them. Winning isn't always everything. The republicans did get control of the federal government from 2001 - 2007, so that happened any way. The difference is that there many, many voters who now recognize the system as corrupted and these voters don't draw any distinctions between the corruption republicans and the corruption of democrats. If the Dems had sworn off the money in the 90s, things would look very different now.

If florida taught me anything, it is that the masses will believe whatever the television tells them to. It is easy to say if the dems swore off the money, things would be different, perhaps, perhaps we might have had a president Dole instead of a Clinton.

Let’s just dip our fingers in purple ink and pose for photos now that voting has the same significance for us as it had for those Iraqis who got conned into thinking they were participating in some grand democratic experiment.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/9893-elections-are-for-suckers

"It is not entirely true that shunning the PACs would have left the president at a disadvantage, since he commands predominant media space by virtue of his office"

Note two things,

the "not entirely" argument, where Scheer resorts to the same weasel talk he acuuses others of. Not entirely true alomst always translates to DAMN TRUE, which is why the right wiong loves that term.

and
he commands predominant media space by virtue of his office"

Sir, that died when Fox news took over, thanks in no small part to the Clintons. The Media will make what THEY want, because there is no obligation on them to be truthful, at all. It will take ten dollars to every five they spend just to end the swiftboating, because the media is complicit, bad news sells, and if trashing Obama makes bad news, they will push it, just like they dhieled Bush, because Bush's bungles made them MONEY..if he lost the election in 2004, they know they would have had to settle for Kerry.

You can't fight a bonfire with a $.99 Bic lighter or a squirt gun.

Will likely leave it blank. Given I live in New York, it doesn't matter much anyway.

If one may inquire?

In fairness, fairly early on, I became disappointed. However, I guess these items built to a crescendo:

Arguing complete government immunity in the Jewell v. NSA case. (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush)

In favor of indefinite detention (the irony of giving this speech in the national archives in front of the Constitution was not lost on me. (

I appreciate the answer, although I don't necessarily agree.

With which do you not agree?

There is enough good about President Obama that I feel differently despite my misgivings on certain things he's done/not done.

From my vantage point, many similar criticisms could be leveled at FDR during his terms, but in the end, he turned out to be one of our best presidents.

I'm going to thank you a hell of a lot. I just had "light bulb moment." If I were alive then, given the Japanese internment, would that have prevented me from voting for FDR? I don't know (I suspect I could not have voted for him). But I want to thank you for being respectful about my views and, at the same time, giving me something very poignant to think about. I will admit to finding myself often quite defensive because many often label me a GOP shill or a troll or "closet" right-winger. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the insults (because I think of politics as a contact sport and am a free speech purist), but I appreciate your insight.

It is such a rare thing in the current political climate.

Consider this a virtual heart.

Substantive and respectful. I'm in Liberal Veteran's camp. But I respect both view points and am really encouraged by the tone of your discussion. A glimmer of HOPE.

How sad it is that such simple and earnest discourse is no longer considered 'Realistic' even on a 'Liberal' site.

Think on that.

That Obama was not lying when he said he was not in favor of the very points you are also opposed to. Consider that to do some real good in the face of what is arguably the most ardent and unreasonable opposition any president since Lincoln has ever faced, Obama had to make compromises that he was unequivocally opposed to.

Consider that the reality is more frightening and potentially more dire than "Obama did it because HE wanted it", but "Obama did it because there was no alternative".

Re-read your links. I did just that. They paint the picture described above.

prior to declaring the entire west coast of America a "military zone", probably gave great comfort to the Japanese-Americans who had to give up their possessions and leave the farms they had operated so successfully so they could go to concentration camps

FDR sold out the Japanese and Japanese-American farmworkers to the farm corporations, who profited greatly. Executive Order 9066 was the last in a series of increasingly repressive measures to reap greater profits from labor.

As great as his accomplishments were, FDR compromised with corporations and as a result, 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps. That's pretty bad.

So when the next Too Big To Fail bank collapses and the citizens are forced to pay for it with deep austerity cuts, will you say, "He had to compromise. He had no choice" and will you be satisfied with that?

try to have fucking clue as to what you're talking about. Read some of Max Weber's theories on society and economics, for starters.

The internment of Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans is the subject of my Master's thesis, which I am currently writing.

Seeking to increase profits from labor, those sharing similar preferences in the capitalist class organize and lobby the government for repressive measures to constrain the worker class, in particular an ethnicity-based status group, limiting its movement, its reproduction, and expropriating it from the machinery. This status group, driven by a religious work ethic and constrained to relationships solely among its own members, develops a unifying force, heralding greater control over labor conditions. This runs counter to “rational” actions by the capitalist class to raise profits, necessitating even more repressive measures. When an opportunity is presented, severe measures to obtain the maximum calculable profit from labor are enacted which, in turn, threaten to expose an unnatural collusion between government and economic sources of power, thereby destroying their credibility. The government counteracts through elite responses to condition the masses (status groups) to accept the disenfranchisement of “outsiders,” as opposed to members of the working class, as just and defensible.

Whereas I had previously been reluctant to include the "revenge" aspect, I have found it be an integral part in obfuscating a "rigged" market economy. In a rigged market economy, capitalists lobby the government for increasingly repressive actions against a particular status group. It is expected that these measures, which restrict movement, prohibit ownership of property, and limit reproduction, will increase profit for the capitalist class by preventing worker class organization. Opportunities to obtain an objective monetary incentive, i.e the maximum calculable profit from labor (expropriating the Japanese from their crops) will be seized.

Transparency is the last thing those with the ability to affect social change, i.e. the capitalists, want. If workers can see how the strings are being pulled and how their life chances are affected by those tugs, they will organize and make "irrational" demands (as far as the capitalists are concerned) to improve their lives. Now the Japanese have always had to deal with obstacles, so for them it was natural. However, if the rest of the status groups, who either had not suffered or were not aware of an unnatural market economy, could see themselves and the Japanese solely as workers, they would realize the capitalists have had a thumb on the scale, taking advantage of an subset of workers who were ultimately just like them. Due to the severity of these repressive measures (apparent arbitrariness, violation of constitutional constraints) the legal-rational authority of the government is jeopardized. This requires conditioning of the masses by cultural elites to accept these actions, though the facilitation of patriotism, racism, bigotry, and threats to personal safety.

This play was just run in the mortgage crisis. Banks lobbied the government for deregulation, ripped everyone off, got bailed out, and blamed it on the blacks and the liberals.

Look at the increasingly repressive measures now in place: The USA PATRIOT Act I & II and its reauthorizations, domestic surveillance, National Security Presidential Directive 51, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Those measures aren't there for our protection, they're there for when people start to realize we live in a rigged market economy, as OWS is now demonstrating.

Your hero-worship of Obama reveals your naivete.

It never has and it never will.

Start over without the hissy-fits and foul language, and I'll consider entertaining whatever your position is.

Until then, nothing you say is worth even examining.

If you can't be an adult, do not expect to be treated as one.

If you can tamp down your ego, you'll find I'm very earnest and considerate.

If you can't, your next response will reveal your true character.

I don't deal with people that can't control themselves.

Good-bye.

Your "conservative crybaby" impersonation is flawless.

It seems to me that if a person really believes in a particular point, they don't compromise on it. These were not things that someone imposed on him. They were positions his administration affirmatively took.

For instance, in the Jewell case, the Bush justice department had asserted the states secrets defense on why the court should dismiss the case. After the election, the court even asked the justice department if, given the change in administration, it wanted to take a different position. The justice department not only did not do that, it took a more extreme position, which shocked the plaintiffs so much.

On the cuts for the CDBG, these were items he proposed in his budget. Nobody forced him. This was something he proposed. The same goes for indefinite detention, detention for acquitted persons and asserting the right to kill citizens without trial.

I just can't agree with you on those items. Perhaps, I could understand the political reality of not vetoing an entire defense bill that has the egregious indefinite detention provision in it.

The health care bill probably best fits your meme. He kept out things he ran on (public option, importation of Canadian drugs) because he thought they would prevent passage. (I don't think he fought hard enough for those things, but that's another story.)

But, it just seems to me that there are certain principles that are so fundamental that when when a person goes against them, it negates everything else. For me, those are the things I'm talking about. Perhaps, it's my legal background, that things like denial of due process are things that are make or break. I just can't pull that lever for him.

That's the difference between religion and logic. Religion often holds a simplistic, absolutist, position, which leads to absurdities.

For instance, in the Jewel case, the argument that nobody should ever be wiretapped, anywhere, ever, for any reason, and establishing any capability to wiretap is therefore wrong. Or that it's wrong to kill people who are actively conspiring to commit mass murder, regardless of the reason, or method. Or that it's wrong to detain prisoners of war.

As far as adjusting block grant budgets, I guess the absurd belief is that we should always pay bureaucracies more money if they claim to use it for the needy?

You may want to come down off that high horse there, sport. I'm not criticizing or denigrating or calling anyone simplistic there for holding their beliefs. In that regard, I will overlook your high-minded and apparently condescending remarks about someone, whoever, who has something for which she or he draws a line in the sand and says they are inviolate.

The government killing people, who happen to be citizens, absent a trial, absent a presentation of charges, is always wrong, particularly when that person is riding in a jeep in the desert unarmed. Otherwise, why have trial? Why have due process? The executive (king?) can unilaterally determine they're a bad person, they don't "deserve" a trial and "off" them. This is not as if this was a person standing in front of a building with explosives strapped to his person ready to blow up a building. If the executive can so blithely throw out due process (and then say he doesn't have to tell us the reasons for his logic), then he's a king, plain and simple.

Regarding the Jewel case, nobody ever made the argument that a government should not wiretap for law enforcement purposes. The plaintiffs brought the case in Jewel because the government in violation of the fourth amendment wiretapped them (that's why I said "warrantless&quot . The Bush administration argued the state secrets privilege precluded even proceeding with the case to discovery...even letting the judge examine the documents in camera (because, you know, you can't trust judges). The Obama administration went even further and said the government was completely immune from citizen lawsuit (you know that part of the first amendment where these citizens were seeking to redress their grievances?).

As for community development block grants, I wonder if you even know how they work. They are monies given to localities. In fact, they are small amounts given to localities, but they are, nevertheless, extremely important serving to bridge the gap between demand and supply of services to the very poor. The point is that Obama proposed a rather sizable cut to a small program. Imagine if he had proposed a 7.5% absolute cut (not from the baseline) of the military.

In addition, I have personal experience of the CDBG and know how necessary the money from that is and the oversight and regulations that recipients must follow to make sure the money is spent properly.

If a person is comfortable with the President cutting such small, but vital, program all out of proportion to its impact on the federal budget, fine, have at it.

But, on a macro level, to accuse a person of parochialism for having a few views and beliefs that are inviolable, is pretty sad in my book. It begs the question: if everything IS negotiable, what DOES a person believe?

Due process, free speech among others are inviolable to me. That is why I will not "flag" someone's comments on here no matter how much I think they may go against the community standards.

No more need be said.

is murder right?

is starving a child right?

is "The government killing people, who happen to be citizens, absent a trial, absent a presentation of charges...particularly when that person is riding in a jeep in the desert unarmed" right?

If you cannot somehow get to them and legally try them, you either have to kill them instead, or accept the blood piling up on your hands.

Was killing bin Laden wrong? Ghadaffi?

Are they any less dead than Saddam Hussein, after his show trial with a known outcome?

I don't believe in killing but I think killing may be justifiable in certain instances. Murder is never justifiable.

It appears from your post, that you don't really believe in due process. That's fine. You would have been right at home with Winston Churchill during WWII who was in favor of summary execution of the German high command rather than, say, the IMT at Nürnberg. Hell, even Israel gave Eichmann a trial and defense counsel. The reason is because process matters. Doing it the right way matters. If someone, somewhere, gets to decide who receives due process and who doesn't, who decides that? What are the criteria?

I personally would rather have seen Hussein and Qaddafi brought to justice and put on trial...real trials. But, again, some folks aren't interested in due process, or they seem only to be for the not guilty of innocent.

You still didn't answer the questions as to whether you think murder, killing a child or killing an American citizen without trial, without presentation of charges, while unarmed, riding in a jeep in the desert are ever acceptable?

As a corollary, who gets due process and who doesn't? Who decides?

"killing an American citizen without trial, without presentation of charges, while unarmed, riding in a jeep in the desert are ever acceptable"

1. Unarmed? Nope. Outgunned? Yes.
2. No charges? He couldn't be bothered with responding to warrants and charges. Neither could the nation he was in.
3. "Riding a jeep in the desert" is a funny way of saying "waging war from foreign soil".

Sure, process matters, if there is uncertainty about outcome. If there is no uncertainty, it's a mere pomposity, worshiping at the altar of bureaucratic routine, paying for the paper-pushing. Hussein was brought to trial, for example.

"If someone, somewhere, gets to decide who receives due process and who doesn't, who decides that? What are the criteria?"

In US matters, that would be the Supreme Court.

....Who authorized much of what you're railing against, long, long, before Obama.

Tap without a warrant? Totally legal to do (but cannot be used as evidence in court). Kill without due process? Totally legal on foreign soil, or in combat situations. Hold somebody as a war prisoner until hostilities cease? Also legal.... and most of the decisions on this are over 100 years old, and some date back to the US civil war.

You're really just wrong. There is no precedent for holding people indefinitely under the modern laws of war. What you are speaking of are "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions. First, there is no war. The "war on terror" is nothing but a fabrication because one cannot fight a tactic. Second, "terrorism" while undefined in international law is a crime. We are not, in fact, fighting a war at all. Those who commit acts of terrorism, commit crimes. Given there is no war, there is no beginning to the war and there is no end to the war. During wars between nations, nations could hold combatants of the opposing army until the end of hostilities. Again, we have none of that. If we can define any actions against criminals as a "war," then I guess we can have a drug "war" so we can detain combatants in that "war" as long as that "war" is going on.

The Supreme Court has not, in fact, decided this.

Mr. Awlaki was, at the time of his killing, unarmed and posed no threat to the United States. He was a citizen entitled to due process.

As for this statement: "Sure, process matters, if there is uncertainty about outcome. If there is no uncertainty, it's a mere pomposity, worshiping at the altar of bureaucratic routine, paying for the paper-pushing. Hussein was brought to trial, for example."

That is, frankly, both profoundly sad and scary. According to you, trials only matter for the obviously innocent or for the questionably guilty. You seem to want to do away with the presumption of innocence. John Gotti: most likely guilty. Yet, time after time, he went free because the state could not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the Rome Statute, which governs the International Criminal Court, preserves the presumption of innocence and calls for a conviction only upon a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the way, warrantless wiretapping is NOT legal. Even under FISA, the government must obtain a warrant within 72 hours of the wiretap. Otherwise, they can't.

How sad is it that certain American, particularly liberals, have taken to calling due process "bureaucratic routine." I weep for this country.

Re: War, the Supreme Court and congress said otherwise.

Re: Awlaki, his tribunal said he was a clear and present danger.
"You seem to want to do away with the presumption of innocence."
Well, that's a memetic fabrication that resulted from some linguistic messiness. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" is the original. Proof was given, Awlaki did not deny it, but even boasted of his guilt. A show trial was not needed to repeat this exchange.

Re: Tapping,

We've been wiretapping without warrants since there were wires.

Nothing illegal about, oh, the phone company listening to the traffic on their wires. Always been legal. Law enforcement can't *force* a tap without a warrant, but voluntarily listening in on equipment a company or person owns is legal. They can even tap for months, or years, without a warrant, and if they get something interesting, ask for a warrant. Sure, they can't admit it as *evidence* without a warrant, but if they get other evidence, they don't need the tapping evidence.

That's part of what the Jewel case was all about, the strange society assumption that wiretapping requires a warrant... it doesn't. Third party doctrine killed it, many, many, years ago, along with common carrier laws, and border laws.

The US government is more than happy to let people believe otherwise.

When people think it's ok that only certain people are entitled to due process...the "good guys." Sadder still that people don't understand who does and does not require a warrant under the constitution.

There was no trial. There was not court of law. Awlaki's killing was an extrajudicial killing. There is no disputing that. Silence has never equaled admission.

You know...never mind. You're right. Only innocent people deserve trials. Only the good guys deserve trials. You're right. There is no fourth amendment. The government can listen to what they want. Hell, they can come into your house, root around and look at your things, as long as they don't "use it." So, let's see...

The 1st Amendment is gone.
The 4th Amendment is gone.
The 5th Amendment is gone.

Now, we that we've done away with silly things like trials, the presumption of innocence, we can really enforce the 6th Amendment. Now we can just skip the trial and go right to the execution. I know...let's just post the accusations in a newspaper somewhere, if the person doesn't deny them...GUILTY!!!! Damn, think how much money we will save. No courts; no DoJ; no legal aid.

I'll be sure and tell my prosecutor friend in New Jersey that she doesn't need a warrant for anything. She can just walk into people's houses, rummage around then go to the judge and say she wants a warrant to use it. Think how much more efficient justice will be. The innocent get trials. The guilty don't.

Awlaki was not silent.

You are also confusing trespassing (going into somebody's house) with people posting things in a public square (crap on the internet).

Also, you should ask your prosecutor friend about when a warrant is, and is not, needed. You might be shocked.

I've even asked criminal court judges about the whole warrant thing. Guess what...well...I'll leave it to your imagination.

Warrants are only needed, used, or required, for legal reasons.

Snort-based tapping (basically tcpdump+filtering), with happy java GUI's to de-nerd it all. Our test labs ran into 500+ nodes to generate traffic, and our "white room" test labs replayed the network traffic sniffed out of nuclear laboratories, embassies, etc. Gigabits per second, all scanned and analyzed and filtered, real time.

http://www.snort.org/

a self-contradiction.

In one part you wrote, "The government killing people, who happen to be citizens, absent a trial, absent a presentation of charges, is always wrong, particularly when that person is riding in a jeep in the desert unarmed."

But then you added later, "This is not as if this was a person standing in front of a building with explosives strapped to his person ready to blow up a building." So this implied you were changing course and presenting the case when it's OK to kill them, absent a trial. Did you intend to carve out exceptions? If so, that negates the absolutes.

I believe that there are plenty of circumstances when the killing is justified including but not limited to being ready to blow up a building. Hold a gun, knife, glass of acid, billy club or whatever on any of my family (or likewise threaten any other person, or even our little beagle) and you're a fair target. Rob a bank and refuse to drop your gun and/or halt and you're a fair target. Reach for a gun in the vicinity of the President and you're a fair target. US citizenship or lack thereof is not a relevant factor in my view. I would argue also that even though intercepting an individual's communications is a lesser degree of force than a hellfire missile, I support the President's decision.

And just out of curiosity, how do you know anyone riding in a jeep was armed or unarmed? I'd bet a donut or apple fritter that most, if not all those in the jeep were packing. But unless you were there, we don't really know, do we?

But like I started, absolutes are always wrong. Irony of the statement is absolutely intentional.

What I was pointing out was that the person standing in front of the building example might be justified (I was using that example to contrast chasing a car with two men in the desert who posed no imminent threat). However, I think killing is always wrong. There are ways to incapacitate people without killing them. Finally, as for the guy being unarmed in the jeep in the desert, the reports were that the men in the jeep were unarmed. Either way, even if they had guns, they posed nobody any imminent threat. So...I'm a purist when it comes to due process. In the same way we afforded due process to the NAZI High Command at Nuremberg, that Milosevic received due process, that Manson received due process, that Eichmann received due process, I think, when any government (or entity, such as the ICC) accuses someone of a crime, that person should receive due process consistent with international law, as currently codified in Article 66 of the Rome Statute (or Municipal Law as in the U.S. or State Constitution). Does that mean bin Laden? Yep. Does that mean Saddam Hussein? Yep. Does that mean George Bush? Yep. Does that mean Charles Taylor? Yep. That even means Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld or Doug Feith.

By his appointment of the AG to head the DoJ, he states clearly where his policy objectives lie. It was the Court in Jewell who asked the DoJ if, given the change in administrations, if they wanted to scrap the state secrets privilege defense. The DoJ, now under Obama's AG, did not do that. Under Obama's AG (who is incidentally nothing but a shill for banks...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/eric-holder-banks-lanny-breuer_n_1218452.html), went further and assert complete government immunity. I guess it was a coincidence that the government's defense became more draconian after Obama's election.

Obama proposed.

That I'd like to know. Having read that you believe that, I am becoming dubious about the claim that the CDBG cuts were his proposals as well.

Can you show me any evidence that Obama proposed indefinite detention?

He proposed the CDBG cuts in his latest budget...of course they were his proposals.

Did you watch the speech in the national archives where he talks about keeping people locked up who are acquitted? Or here...http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/08/12598/#more-12598; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8516402)

You will notice here: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/timeline/ look at March 7, 2011.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-officials-drafting-secret-indefinite-detention-policy

The actual quotes or position of the evidence in the documentation you've provided, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thank you.

I'm a wingnut. It was only a matter of time.

Honestly, I don't get what you can't see.

Who do you think proposed the CDBG 7.5% cuts? They are in Obama's FY2012 budget.

Who do you think proposed the indefinite detention of prisoners and people acquitted at Gitmo? Well, it came right from Obama's lips in the video...my guess is him.

It's all there, plain and simple, but, ok, I'm a wingnut, a shill, a troll and whatever other name you want to call me. Ok, fine. How about we just walk away because I don't know what else to tell you and you can't, for whatever reason, see it.

Have a nice day.

But you are using a tactic I see them use every time they want to defend a belief for which there exists no support.

I understand that you have to over-react in order to excuse yourself. I wish you wouldn't. You seemed so otherwise capable of rational discourse.

You have chosen to believe that which you cannot support. There's a saying from Thomas Paine that applies here:

“Attempting to debate with a person who has
abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”

At whatever point you can demonstrate that Obama wanted the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, please feel free to PM me. I would certainly be disappointed in him to find such a thing out... in reality.

A=B, B=C, A=C

Indefinite detention and detention of acquitted individuals: he proposed it; he made a speech about it right there in front of the national archives (and I attached the video). He even signed a law (the NDAA) that granted that power. I'm sorry, his actions speak louder than his words. Given his speech, which I continue to allude to and his actions, I don't know what other conclusion other than that he's for it.

Cutting the CDBG: it was his FY2012 budget where it came from. He mentioned it in the 2011 State of the Union.

Asserting the right to kill Americans without trial. He did it. He ordered it.

Are you honestly saying that you don't think his FY2012 budget was his budget? Are you honestly saying that he ordered the killing of American citizens without trial but didn't agree with it?

Are you honestly saying that where says in his speech that his for holding indefinitely or holding people whom a court has acquitted he didn't really agree with it?

If that's the case, then we should just wish each other peace, love and joy and go quietly about our ways because we are not going to convince each other of anything nor are we going to understand each other's perspective. If that's the case, it's a draw and we walk away...no hard feelings.

Nor does using a wingnut tactic make you a wingnut.
You've applied the wrong logical rule.

There is no 'draw'.

You're going to believe something you have no evidence for. You can't quote him or point to the part of the video where he states it's his idea. You choose to live with a fantasy, and there isn't much I can do to change that. So I figure we're done here.

What I am going to do, anytime I see you or anyone else state something that is not true about Obama or has no rational basis in reality on this site, is intervene and ask for something that demonstrates the validity of that assertion.

Then, after the GE begins in earnest, I don't have to hear bullshit reasons why people 'can't vote for Obama'.

Peace.

That you can't read where HE PROPOSED IN HIS BUDGET cutting the CDBG.

That you are not able to understand where HE PROPOSED INDEFINITE DETENTION and DETENTION OF ACQUITTED PERSONS IN HIS SPEECH.

That HE ORDERED THE HIT ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

So, go on believing that his words are not his words; that his actions are not his actions. I get it. I get it that you are angry. So, let me just say it this way. The Administration's FY2012 that proposed a 7.5% cut in the CDBG was not his budget. That speech where he talked about dressing up indefinite detention in some sort of concocted legal framework/star chamber were not really his words because, I don't know, he didn't write the speech? I get it that he signed the NDAA with its cute provisions that allow the government to indefinitely detain American citizens captured on US Soil, but he didn't really believe in that, even though he said he'd veto it and then didn't, but then issued a "signing statement" that he wouldn't do it, cross his heart hope to die, stick a needle in his eye. So, I get it.

While we're at it, he never said this in a speech in 2007 in Spartanburg, SC where he said this:

Understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain, when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I'll walk on that picket line with you, as president of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that someone's standing in their corner

I challenge BS. Period. Trying to paint that as some kind of character flaw is a bit sad in light of how allowing bullshit to spread is exactly why the nation is the mess it is today. The people who should be ashamed are the ones who spread the bullshit or allow it to propagate. We should all hold one another to higher standards, especially considering that wingnuts are anathema to standards.

So understand that trying to stick a label like 'self-appointed enforcer' on me reflects more on your aversion to higher standards than it does on my character.

If you want to know where this began to devolve, it happened the moment you abandoned standards of discourse and employed a wingnut tactic. Throwing someone a link and telling them to do the work of backing up your claim is a tactic I will not tolerate. No one should.

I asked about indefinite detentions and the CDBG cuts. You have still failed to provide a single quote, instance, or time marker showing that those were his proposals and his orders. That is apparently too high of a standard to ask you to meet. Instead you have done nothing but claim to be paraphrasing what he's said.

The only point that stands to reason is the execution of an American on foreign soil. That sounds like something that would have to be cleared through the executive. There were obviously reasons for doing so, that doesn't make it right. That one single transgression, if in fact true, is not enough for me to throw the election to a Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich. We're not merely talking 'greater of two evils' here, we're talking 'greater by orders of magnitude.

Again: So long as people are claiming they will not support the Democratic candidate on a Democratic site for reasons they cannot back up, I will challenge them. Everything you believe that is based in reality and sound reason will be a belief we will share. Everything you believe that is based on conjecture, hearsay, or desire is fantasy.

As for 'anger', that would be you engaging in projection, "FedUp".

You're engaging in satire. You had me going for a while. That's good. I bow before the King of Satire. That's cool. Oh, wait...maybe it's opposite day. So, when he proposed that cut in his FY2012 budget that was really a 7.5% increase. Satire, opposite day these are great. Cool. It's like Orwellian, or maybe it's not, or maybe it is, depending upon the day it is. So..a 7.5% decrease could be a 7.5% increase depending upon which day it is. Or...depending upon which day it is, it was not his FY2012 proposed budget, it was the "Anti-President's" FY 2012 Budget....kind of like the Bizarro Budget. The cool thing is this: I can tell my Dad to call his GOP congressman and tell him it's a cut on non-opposite day and then after the congress passes this cut...or a bigger one...and the President signs it that the cut was not a cut at all, but, on opposite day, the bigger cut was actually a bigger increase. I get it...and to think you had me going about that. Next time, I can't for you to use your powers to make water into wine.

Nice attempt to find a way to bail, but you still haven't provided a single thing to support your desire. Like I said: 'Let's have the quote' where he made such a 'proposal'. Hell, I'll even take an anecdote or second-hand account from someone in his administration. I'm trying to make this easy for you.

Are you going to keep embarrassing yourself, or provide what I requested without the wingnut tactics?

All these insults and satire. Methinks you doth protest too much. It's not my fault you look at Obama's FY2012 and see the 7.5% proposed cut in the CDBG and want to attribute it to someone else. That's cool. My prior post stands. You don't want to look at reality. That's fine. All I can conclude is that, as I previously said, a cut is not really a cut or the president's budget is not really the president's budget. That's fine. I've placed the facts, the quotations, the actions right in front of your face. If you choose not to see them, to put your hands over your eyes and your ears, that's your problem. But really, to say that the president's proposal to cut 7.5% from the CDBG is not his though it's in his budget, is beyond me. When he lays out, with his words, the indefinite detention of prisoners in a speech at the National Archives, and you refuse to see hear it, I can't help you. So, there I said it. I can't help you. I have nothing to conclude other than that you are engaging in a satirical rant never really intending to discuss this seriously. So, I'm done. Go ahead...say I'm using "wingnut" tactics and running away and "walking away because I'm defeated" or whatever. If it makes you feel better, fine. So, I'm saying you're right, but I didn't really say that, or did I? Maybe I did.

No 'victory' or 'defeat'. Just an attempt to bring something into focus.

You believe something for which no support exists. You simply choose to believe that you know Obama's intentions, yet you cannot point to anything that backs up such a belief.

Does it not bother you that fundamentalists do the same thing? They choose to believe much for which no support exists. It bothers me to see that same behavior coming from supposed progressives, yet here it is, right in front of me.

To truly believe that every single thing a President signs contains only provisions that the President wants displays an astounding level of political naïvete as well. If that is truly all you have to go on, I have another question:

"Do you actually believe that Presidents never propose or sign anything that contains provisions they are personally opposed to?"

You can't answer the question because a 'yes' answer would indicate that you are very politically naïve when it comes to the bills and proposals that a president signs. Since you are aware that presidents often sign bills that contain provisions they do not like or want because there is otherwise much that is needed, you can't honestly say 'yes'.

You can't answer the question with a 'no' either, because that would be an admission that the very thin premise you are trying to use to justify your belief is, in fact, false.

You know very well that his merely signing a bill does not indicate that he is in favor of everything in it, but since you have no other indications for your desire-based belief, it's the only thing you can come up with.

I learned long ago to distinguish between beliefs based on desire and those based on reality. It's an important part of developing a mature world-view. It's one of the reasons we so roundly reject the opinions of wingnuts and fundies. Given that Obama stated clearly that he opposed the detention provision in the NDAA, and that you cannot provide any support showing that Obama wants to cut such programs in the CDBG, your 'belief' that Obama is some kind of 'cruel' person is, in a nutshell, "bullshit".

You're not worth it.

The real problem with someone who refuses to do introspection isn't that they think someone else 'isn't worth it'.

You simply don't think you are worth it. Otherwise you would choose to grow rather than run away from your own transparency. Try to understand this: this isn't about me 'being right' or you 'being wrong', this is about whether you wish to be someone who bases their beliefs on desire, or reality.

Tell us, in your own words, why you can't answer the question.

Oh, Jesus. Will you get a load of yourself?

My 'obsession' is with the forces of self-delusion and anti-reason. I simply don't let people who base their beliefs on desire rather than reality off the hook. That you can't seem to walk away only indicates you're struggling with the fact that you've been pegged as just such a person but can't make any kind of case to demonstrate otherwise. I've given you every opportunity, yet you can't produce quotes, point to footage, or produce any material reason for your belief that Obama 'wants' these terrible things. Instead, you've produced the incredible premise that 'everything in a bill a president signs, the president personally wants'... which is bullshit right on the face of it.

I'm doing this because I enjoy cutting through bullshit. It's a hobby I began in earnest when dealing with wingnuts who routinely spout bullshit. I like the exercise of getting to a particular truth of someone's character. If a person is mature, they will acknowledge the sound reason and facts they've been confronted with and decide to 'adapt' their worldview. It is something I myself do quite often as I am bound by reason, although I make no claim to perfection. If a person is not mature, they will resort to derision, ridicule, or evasion rather than adjust their views to the reality.

As you have done quite repeatedly here. So please, if you can't grow, just leave.

There is no need to substitute rudeness for substance here. If there is one DUer that understands condescension, it's most certainly myself. There is no place for that, even in such a small dose, in this exchange.

The question that I asked was very straightforward. I've examined each and every one of your links and not a single one provides any evidence that it was Obama that wanted any of the above. I get the notion that 'The Buck Stops Here', and I'm not necessarily letting him off the hook for what happens in his administration, but my point upthread is that he doesn't have full control over his administration... for now.

In fact, I said exactly this:

(Consider that) Obama was not lying when he said he was not in favor of the very points you are also opposed to. Consider that to do some real good in the face of what is arguably the most ardent and unreasonable opposition any president since Lincoln has ever faced, Obama had to make compromises that he was unequivocally opposed to.

Consider that the reality is more frightening and potentially more dire than "Obama did it because HE wanted it", but "Obama did it because there was no alternative".


In not one single link that you have provided is there any indication of any kind that I am wrong here. In fact, there is this interesting excerpt:

One more time.

Indefinite detention: his proposal in the speech at the national archives.

Detention of acquitted individuals: his proposal.

CDBG cuts: his proposal in his 2012 budget.

Killing American citizens without trial: his administration and on his order.

Regarding the NDAA: if he really had been against it, he would have vetoed it (as he said he would). The so-called "signing statement" is nothing but toilet paper masquerading as principle, or something. Given the fact that he ordered the killing of American citizens and that he proposed holding people acquitted, what benefit should I give him of any doubt that he wouldn't exercise the unconstitutional power to detain Americans picked up on American soil?

And, please, don't lecture me on condescension, etc. That horse left the barn a long time ago with you riding it.

As a matter of fact Obama and I don't agree. I don't agree with indefinitely detaining citizens without trial. I don't agree with killing citizens accused of crimes without trial. I don't agree with cutting vital programs for the poor...that work so well...like the community development block grant. I don't agree with detaining people acquitted. I don't agree with detaining people without charge.

Finally, as to my "aversion" to indefinite detention, I don't have an "aversion" to it. It's unconstitutional. We should never do it. He's for it. He said he was. He signed a law that had it in there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=46348

then when I point it out they resort to projection.

Still no quotes from Obama or anything demonstrating he wanted what he stated very clearly he did not.

So, the speech that he gave at the national archives was not his words.

The budget he proposed was not his budget.

The actions that he took were not his actions.

You had me going there for a minute. That's pretty good.

project much?



fascinating little exchange there indeed, not as if people cannot read for themselves.


War is Peace!

If people don't like being condescended to, they shouldn't employ wingnut tactics in a discussion. Make no mistake about it, if I'm 'talking down' to you, you've earned it.

So, did you bother to grasp the point of the discussion, or are you just here to feel superior to someone?

I imagine many people sincerely believe they have the depth of wisdom to confirm that one or another has "earned" vulgar behavior... I'd guess that more often than not, it allows a person to feel "superior to someone."

On the other hand, I imagine that those who actually posses wisdom and insight, avoid condescending remarks, as they are, by definition, most unwise.

Truly a fascinating example.

When people behave like children, I talk to them like children. When people behave like adults, I speak to them as adults. I'd let you in on a little secret too, but I'm certain that in your great wisdom and superiority you have it all figured out.

I don't get Current TV and I really miss seeing Turley on KO's show.

Oh, and "indefinite" is the wrong word.

War prisoners can go home when hostilities cease.

That is a defined end.

They aren't even prisoners of war. There is no war. There is only endless death, destruction and mayhem so that capitalists can rape and pillage....oh, never mind. Go read the Geneva Conventions.

I think we're done with this branch.

Over 100,000 dead, and it's not war?

is not so much 'awareness' as 'desire to believe'.

It's sad to see DUers reduced to emotion-based beliefs. But since so many here want to believe that Obama is evil, his voice will be joined.

Right up until the GE, where people who can't explain their undermining will be gone. I look forward to that.

Now say something ridiculous like "You just don't like legitimate criticism of Obama!" or some other foolishness. If his undermining of Obama were 'legitimate', then he could provide something to back it up.

Now the supreme law of the land seems to be "Be afraid. Be very very afraid. And if you refuse to be afraid of those things we in power tell you to fear, then you are a terrorist yourself. And you can be locked up indefinitely, without any charges against you, Forever."

you have something there

Likely, they'll just throw a hissy fit (like they do about the corporate media by painting it as big liberal media) and cast themselves as the victim and try to get us to agree to unreasonable concessions that make it easier for them and harder for us.

If both parties are damaged by super pacs, they may start to rethink it. We can hope!

They'll just spend more money to convince more people that the REAL problem is the 'liberal' superpacs for engaging in unethical practices.

Remember that wingnuts don't care if their 'side' is doing anything unethical. They're sports fans, as far as they're concerned the fact that an accusation comes from the 'other side' makes it false. They don't use reason or critical thought. It'll just become another game of us vs them.

... founding/running Progressives United.

Perhaps he'll get back into public service, when it's not as smelly as it is now. I know I wouldn't have the stomach for all the ass-kissing and behind-closed-doors bullshit meddlings that being a Senator/Governor etc requires nowadays ...

but at some point, once the rules have been officially changed, as they have, you can't unilaterally disarm.

...ya gotta love it.

The GOPathetic, FuxNews and even Dems/Libs/Progressives are HOWLING about this.

Andddd, exactly what would those howlers like Prez O to do? How would he compete?

...idiots.

And Russ...get your butt out there and run. Then work for change. Stop howling...

...and he shouldn't be. He faced untold millions from the KKKoch Brothers during his reelection bid. He, of all people, should know and understand that when faced with the Citizens United decision, Obama and the Democratic Party HAVE NO CHOICE!!

How does Russ think that the Democrats will win?

They are forced to play this game. And yes, the message may get lost in all the muck and mire of this election, but again, they have absolutely no choice in the matter.

The Democrats won't be able to compete with Citizens United money from the Right unless they organize.

Although I liked the old system, the citizens united decision will be around a long time. The old system did have a downside too, as that system created a culture of negative ads (swift boats), as the 527's could not run positive ads for who they supported. It would be foolish for the Democrats not to organize superpacs when the right has heavily embraced the concept. The people are still the ones who vote, and it is up to the people to vote for their own interests.

Just like 1/3rd of the population of this country embraces the policies that keep the 1% in power, there are some liberal donors from the 1% that support the 99%.

And he should know that.

We have no choice. Our democracy is threatened.

Plus: my hopes are that this will be such an unprecedented deluge of campaign ads that Americans will become universally disgusted by it.

Then, once there's waaaaay too much of it all, progress on overturning it can begin.

I'm glad for once to see him not insist on bringing a plate of cookies to a gun fight.

Especially given all the ways that he's been pro big money and subjected his policies to the influence of to and appointed people favorable to big money's influence in politics, it would be stupid for him to all of a sudden take a stand on THIS. It wouldn't carry any weight given his past actions and it would insure a Republican victory.

Not the place to make a stand and draw the line in the sand.

... to overturn Citizens United. Spurning money won't help get him re-elected.