President Obama's trip to Afghanistan on the Anniversary of Killing of OBL

[Donb123]

(05-02-2012 11:28 AM)dramaturge Wrote:  Interesting sentiment. What exact policies or actions would you point to that would justify referring to the president as a "train wreck"?

You pretty much had me until here.. where to begin..

I can't begin to make a comprehensive list but let's try:

Not closing Gitmo
Escalating the war in Afghanistan
Military action in Egypt and Syria
Payback money to many failed "green" companies that failed and left toxic environmental problems behind.
Signing indefinite detention law
Updating executive orders that purport to give POTUS authority to suspend all internet, control all land and food, etc., in the event of "national emergency" or disaster
Gun Runner
Grenade Runner
Illegally failing to enforce federal laws he disagrees with
Stealing equity from GM/Chrysler shareholders and stealing dealerships.


That's only scratching the surface.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4AJ843ERnU

How's that.. that liberal bastian of right wing wingnut Alex John-esque conspiracy nut John Stewart.. oh yeah that's right.. the liberal John Stewart even sees the fraud for what he is.

[Scorpio]

(05-02-2012 01:50 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  I can't begin to make a comprehensive list but let's try:

Swing and miss.

Seriously, military action in Eygypt and Syria? What does that mean? That we should have gone into those countries??? Did we take miltary action and I missed it?? I am so confused.

[Donb123]

(05-02-2012 01:59 PM)Scorpio Wrote:  

(05-02-2012 01:50 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  I can't begin to make a comprehensive list but let's try:

Swing and miss.

Seriously, military action in Eygypt and Syria? What does that mean? That we should have gone into those countries??? Did we take miltary action and I missed it?? I am so confused.

The US has had planes and or personnel or support in both countries.

Democrats are as much warmongers as Republicans.

[dramaturge]

(05-02-2012 01:50 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(05-02-2012 11:28 AM)dramaturge Wrote:  Interesting sentiment. What exact policies or actions would you point to that would justify referring to the president as a "train wreck"?

You pretty much had me until here.. where to begin..

I can't begin to make a comprehensive list but let's try:

Not closing Gitmo
Escalating the war in Afghanistan
Military action in Egypt and Syria
Payback money to many failed "green" companies that failed and left toxic environmental problems behind.
Signing indefinite detention law
Updating executive orders that purport to give POTUS authority to suspend all internet, control all land and food, etc., in the event of "national emergency" or disaster
Gun Runner
Grenade Runner
Illegally failing to enforce federal laws he disagrees with
Stealing equity from GM/Chrysler shareholders and stealing dealerships.


That's only scratching the surface.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4AJ843ERnU

How's that.. that liberal bastian of right wing wingnut Alex John-esque conspiracy nut John Stewart.. oh yeah that's right.. the liberal John Stewart even sees the fraud for what he is.

*There was a concerted effort to move prisoners out of Gitmo and close it. And then erupted a furor along the lines of "OH NOES TEH TERRORISTS WILL BREAK OUT OF PRISONS! OH NOES TRIBUNALS ONLY FOR TEH TERRORISTS!" And that went down the drain. Gitmo can't factually be laid at the feet of the POTUS.
*The surge was necessary and should have been done earlier. Withdrawal from Iraq has been accomplished as promised, and withdrawal from Afghanistan will be completed on time. I have no problems with the way the POTUS has handled either, and I became very much not a fan of the Iraq front of the war.
*We weren't in Egypt. Perhaps you mean Libya? Again, I feel we handled that well, working as a coalition largely made up of other countries, providing support. I tend to wish we would approach Syria the same way, but that's quite a mare's nest, and Assad has avoided all-out aerial assault, so our involvement has been minimal, at best. I think you're getting misinformation about our involvement in both countries if you think we have or are actually in active troop warfare there.
*Many? Uh, no. But, you and I are going to have a fundamental disagreement on whether the risks of investing in green energy are worth it. I think they are. We need to get away from fossil fuels, and it's time oil subsidies were transferred on. I understand your point of view on that is different. So there it is.
*I agree that the indefinite detention law is a problem. It's the one area where I am disappointed. But, I can live with it in light of the things I'm glad he's accomplished.
*I think you need to do some more balanced research on that executive order. It doesn't say what you think it does. I don't have linkage on me at the moment, but if I get the time, I'll try to get back on that.
*Yes, the Fast and Furious program was a failure, and whoever convinced the ATF that was a smart idea is a great con man. Compared to Iran-Contra, dealable. I also don't lay that directly at the feet of the POTUS. That was an ATF maneuver entirely. And it seems clear from the investigations that the ATF members involved kept the details of what was happening under wraps, probably because they suspected it was a big, fat, stupid idea.
*I can only assume you're talking about DOMA. There is a distinction between enforcement and defending a statute in court. DOMA is still being enforced, but if and when any cases come to court, the DOJ is not defending DOMA until there is a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the Act. There are serious questions about its constitutionality that need to be settled.
*And this one. This one is all loaded language and particular perspective. How you view the situation with the carmakers is entirely dependent on your view of the role of government. I happen to think that in dire economic circumstances the best aid available is often the government. Especially with carefully outlined guidelines for everyone's behavior, as in the auto bailout. I suspect you disagree, and that's fine.

In all, even if I agreed with your perspective, I wouldn't view this administration as a "train wreck." I think that's not only a cynical, but a very selective view.

I appreciate your list though. It helps me to see specifics to better understand where people are coming from.

[Donb123]

Quote:*There was a concerted effort to move prisoners out of Gitmo and close it. And then erupted a furor along the lines of "OH NOES TEH TERRORISTS WILL BREAK OUT OF PRISONS! OH NOES TRIBUNALS ONLY FOR TEH TERRORISTS!" And that went down the drain. Gitmo can't factually be laid at the feet of the POTUS.

POTUS has rarely backed down on anything. Even Barney Franks says the polarizing and unpopular health scare bill that POTUS had his heart set on was not a good idea and he wouldn't do it again. Obama pushes till he gets what he wants. If you simply read the list of illegal Executive Orders he's passed or the things he's handed off to his administration to do that contravene existing laws then you'd know what I'm talking about.

Quote:*The surge was necessary and should have been done earlier. Withdrawal from Iraq has been accomplished as promised, and withdrawal from Afghanistan will be completed on time. I have no problems with the way the POTUS has handled either, and I became very much not a fan of the Iraq front of the war.

The "surge" that Obama apparently had to be talked into by Generals saw a whole bunch more people dead from both sides.

Oh, and withdrawal from Afghanistan won't happen any time soon. He just signed an agreement with Karzhai to keep troops there until 2020-something.

Quote:*We weren't in Egypt. Perhaps you mean Libya? Again, I feel we handled that well, working as a coalition largely made up of other countries, providing support. I tend to wish we would approach Syria the same way, but that's quite a mare's nest, and Assad has avoided all-out aerial assault, so our involvement has been minimal, at best. I think you're getting misinformation about our involvement in both countries if you think we have or are actually in active troop warfare there.

Kill em all! Let God/Allah sort em out!

Quote:*Many? Uh, no. But, you and I are going to have a fundamental disagreement on whether the risks of investing in green energy are worth it. I think they are. We need to get away from fossil fuels, and it's time oil subsidies were transferred on. I understand your point of view on that is different. So there it is.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Executive can give money to invest in ANYTHING.

Quote:*I agree that the indefinite detention law is a problem. It's the one area where I am disappointed. But, I can live with it in light of the things I'm glad he's accomplished.

Read: "I'll shill for the guy even though he can kill me at a whim cause I like him otherwise..."

Quote:*I think you need to do some more balanced research on that executive order. It doesn't say what you think it does. I don't have linkage on me at the moment, but if I get the time, I'll try to get back on that.

Show me "executive order" in the Constitution.

Quote:*Yes, the Fast and Furious program was a failure, and whoever convinced the ATF that was a smart idea is a great con man. Compared to Iran-Contra, dealable. I also don't lay that directly at the feet of the POTUS. That was an ATF maneuver entirely. And it seems clear from the investigations that the ATF members involved kept the details of what was happening under wraps, probably because they suspected it was a big, fat, stupid idea.

There's no need to compare it to Iran Contra. That's over. This is now. Eric Holder needs to be imprisoned for life- and possibly Barry also.

Quote:*I can only assume you're talking about DOMA. There is a distinction between enforcement and defending a statute in court. DOMA is still being enforced, but if and when any cases come to court, the DOJ is not defending DOMA until there is a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the Act. There are serious questions about its constitutionality that need to be settled.

That's legally not the prerogative of the Executive branch. The law doesn't really stand in the way of this "constitutional scholar" for some reason.

Quote:*And this one. This one is all loaded language and particular perspective. How you view the situation with the carmakers is entirely dependent on your view of the role of government. I happen to think that in dire economic circumstances the best aid available is often the government. Especially with carefully outlined guidelines for everyone's behavior, as in the auto bailout. I suspect you disagree, and that's fine.

It's easily verifiable. A local dealer had a thriving dealership... one of the biggest in the area.. but he was a Republican. He begged for help and nobody cared. Obama violated contract law. You cannot take stuff from someone who owns it without compensation. It was 100% theft and there's really no way to justify it.

As far as the government being the "best aid" you're simply ignoring, as are most people, the truth of the matter. The government DOES NOT HAVE ANY MONEY. It simply prints more funny money to be covered by bonds that we cannot hope to repay. This kind of wickedness is simply destroying the future for our children because we cannot be bothered to feel any pain today. It's immoral.

Quote:In all, even if I agreed with your perspective, I wouldn't view this administration as a "train wreck." I think that's not only a cynical, but a very selective view.

"Train wreck" is being WAY too nice. It's an abomination. The deaths of innocent people in Gun Runner and the armed services, indefinite detention, Gitmo, etc, alone would qualify it for "oppressive regime" if it weren't the USA or the particular party we supported.

[dramaturge]

Okay. I definitely understand where you're coming from now.

[Donb123]

It sure doesn't take long before there's new stuff for the list. I suppose we'll see if this is one of those back-down moments or not. It looks like he might not get it this time. It is telling that he'd ask though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03...Lid=157905

[greg]

I definitely call em as I see em, and Obama has definitely rocked those terrorists with the drones (I love it) Hats off to him and the U.S. military for knocking out Fahd al-Quso, we have reason to celebrate, but there are a dozen others waiting to take his place, that is why we need to "capture" some and "waterboard" the heck out of them to develop intel for the future big acts of terror, which unfortunately are being planned as I type this.

I think it's fine for Obama to get some mileage out of his/military's success on the killing of Bin Laden, but he went too far in suggesting his opponent wouldn't have done the same, and I'm telling you this has been his "biggest" political blunder. In a contest that will probably be settled by the independents, I can assure you this is going to hurt him, and I believe that it will carry on until the election, I think it's Obama's biggest political gaffe to date.

I won't be voting for either one this year, Obama because of his blatant Socialism, and Romney for belonging to a Cult.