Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Romney's "I used to worry about getting fired too" line reveals that in his own mind, he believes he's a self-made man. Which is a problem because "delusional" is a bad thing for a president to be   ( news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, human beings, Yahoo News, Sam's Club, William Henry Harrison, New Republic, Senate race, Peggy Noonan  
•       •       •

1853 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jan 2012 at 2:05 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-01-11 10:05:31 AM  
 
2012-01-11 10:36:23 AM  
I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.

Besides, Romney won't win against Obama. Why switch to a white Obama/Republican Lite when you can keep the same half-Republican Obama without a transition?

In fact, I predict a low turnout for the voting this Fall (barring some earth shattering event like war with Iran, Obama turning out to have a dead woman or live boy in his bed, or aliens)
 
2012-01-11 10:42:12 AM  
There's a fine iine between delusional and "believes his own bullshiat"

/not sure which side ol' Mittens is on, but delusion isn't usually so well thought out
 
2012-01-11 10:44:51 AM  
To paraphrase Molly Ivins she said something similar about Dubya that applies.
He was born on third base and grew up thinking he hit a triple.
 
2012-01-11 10:48:30 AM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.

Besides, Romney won't win against Obama. Why switch to a white Obama/Republican Lite when you can keep the same half-Republican Obama without a transition?

In fact, I predict a low turnout for the voting this Fall (barring some earth shattering event like war with Iran, Obama turning out to have a dead woman or live boy in his bed, or aliens)


That's why there is so much massaging of the outrage machine. Hoping for lower turnout on the Democrat's side, and increased turnout by the loyal Republican base. The problem being, if the Outrage Machine goes into too high a gear, it will only activate the Democratic base in response. Which, to be fair, it needs to do. We all need to be aware and awake on this one. Couple it with measures to limit the vote in areas, it is a prime season for shennanigans.
 
2012-01-11 11:08:19 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Liberals want to live in a meritocracy.
Conservatives think they already do.


QFT
 
2012-01-11 11:08:20 AM  
Another explanation is that he's being disingenuous in an attempt to craft a more favorable public image.
 
2012-01-11 11:10:19 AM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway.


Ah... so you're the one who submitted that retarded TFD thread.
 
2012-01-11 11:10:52 AM  
Don't worry, Subby.

He's not gonna be President.
 
2012-01-11 11:18:33 AM  
At what point would firing worry him. People who have to have jobs to support their families might worry, but he has always had enough money where he didn't have to work. Not that ever had a real job.
 
2012-01-11 11:21:36 AM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway.


What's the alternative -- one of the GOP retards? They're not even *trying* any more.
 
2012-01-11 11:27:45 AM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway.


Because it isn't at all guaranteed that Obama wins again. Therefore, it matters how insane the other choice ends up being.
 
2012-01-11 11:31:30 AM  

Wendy's Chili: I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway.

Ah... so you're the one who submitted that retarded TFD thread.


It actully was a nice discussion...because...other than your use of retarded...was very civilized.
 
2012-01-11 11:33:19 AM  

gameshowhost: I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway.

What's the alternative -- one of the GOP retards? They're not even *trying* any more.


See? You don't care who they nominate. They could nominate Zombie Mother Teresa and you'd vote Obama.

Its been clear for months that Romney was the nominee, yet the liberals (media and on Fark) and the conservatives....are all acting like it matters personally to them. As Adlai Stevenson (maybe wrong guy) once said, "The people have spoken....the bastards."
 
2012-01-11 11:35:35 AM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.

Besides, Romney won't win against Obama. Why switch to a white Obama/Republican Lite when you can keep the same half-Republican Obama without a transition?

In fact, I predict a low turnout for the voting this Fall (barring some earth shattering event like war with Iran, Obama turning out to have a dead woman or live boy in his bed, or aliens)


I care about who runs because I want a sane Republican party return. Not this group of Bible-thumping, xenophobic, racist, war-mongering, authoritarian morons. I want the nut jobs like Santorum and Bachmann to be the fringe, not the mainstream of the party. But hey, that's just me
 
2012-01-11 11:37:57 AM  
I_C_Weener: , honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.

Hmmm... So you think that liberals are very loyal to Obama and want to see him win the next election, but you don't understand why they might be interested in who his opponent will be?

You must really be flummoxed by the strange phenomenon of NY Yankees fans being interested in who their team will be playing, even though they will root for the Yankees.

Also, that's not what "butthurt" means.
 
2012-01-11 11:44:22 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2012-01-11 11:52:34 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: But hey, that's just me


And you'd vote for such a Republican? Say...McCain, Dole, Bush 1, Jack Kemp, Reagan, Ford, Nixon...how far back you want me to go?
 
2012-01-11 11:56:13 AM  
What's that line... Born on third, thinks he hit a triple?
 
2012-01-11 12:01:16 PM  

I_C_Weener: Peter von Nostrand: But hey, that's just me

And you'd vote for such a Republican? Say...McCain, Dole, Bush 1, Jack Kemp, Reagan, Ford, Nixon...how far back you want me to go?


I don't know, who are they running against? Would you vote for a Democrat? How far back do you want to go? In my opinion the right wing has lost it's mind and your hypothetical doesn't change this. None of those guys are running and several of them are dead
 
2012-01-11 12:05:46 PM  
I can't fathom why Patriots fans watched the NFL Wild Card playoffs this past weekend. I mean, they are just going to root for the Patriots in the Divisional game. Why do they care who wins?
 
2012-01-11 12:09:30 PM  
Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?
 
2012-01-11 12:09:31 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: I_C_Weener: Peter von Nostrand: But hey, that's just me

And you'd vote for such a Republican? Say...McCain, Dole, Bush 1, Jack Kemp, Reagan, Ford, Nixon...how far back you want me to go?

I don't know, who are they running against? Would you vote for a Democrat? How far back do you want to go? In my opinion the right wing has lost it's mind and your hypothetical doesn't change this. None of those guys are running and several of them are dead


I'd probably consider Hillary at this point. Bill if I could go back and change a vote. Prior to that...LBJ.

But I see your point. You have no ability to consider voting for the Republicans...which brings me back to...why do you care who they nominate?
 
2012-01-11 12:11:17 PM  

RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?


I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.
 
2012-01-11 12:17:59 PM  

I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.


If you don't like mustard on a Hamburger, you are un-American.
 
2012-01-11 12:20:27 PM  

Headso: What's that line... Born on third, thinks he hit a triple?


I guess I'm on your ignore list, good to know.

Since you won't see this let me tell everyone that Headso molests collies

/jk
 
2012-01-11 12:21:12 PM  

oldernell: At what point would firing worry him. People who have to have jobs to support their families might worry, but he has always had enough money where he didn't have to work. Not that ever had a real job.


Like everyone else, I fantasize about hitting the lottery someday. but lately I think more and more about how empty and hollow that would make anything else I'd achieve after that. Finally write those novels I've dreamed about writing one day? So what? Even if they are best-sellers the money wouldn't mean anything. Start that company/ perfect that invention/write that app? Great. But to what end? The satisfaction of doing it might be nice, but the rewards would seem pointless.

It's kind of why I feel sorry for someone like Romney who's born into great wealth. No matter what he achieves, it has to feel somewhat like playing pretend, because if he fails, there are no consequences. To keep his self-respect, it might be necessary for him to re-write his "origin story" a bit to make it more exciting and risky
 
2012-01-11 12:23:22 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Headso: What's that line... Born on third, thinks he hit a triple?

I guess I'm on your ignore list, good to know.

Since you won't see this let me tell everyone that Headso molests collies

/jk


Quoted for the collie molester.
 
2012-01-11 12:24:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.

 
2012-01-11 12:25:41 PM  

RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.


Is...is this a thing?

I kind of want to try this now.
 
2012-01-11 12:26:56 PM  

I_C_Weener: Peter von Nostrand: I_C_Weener: Peter von Nostrand: But hey, that's just me

And you'd vote for such a Republican? Say...McCain, Dole, Bush 1, Jack Kemp, Reagan, Ford, Nixon...how far back you want me to go?

I don't know, who are they running against? Would you vote for a Democrat? How far back do you want to go? In my opinion the right wing has lost it's mind and your hypothetical doesn't change this. None of those guys are running and several of them are dead

I'd probably consider Hillary at this point. Bill if I could go back and change a vote. Prior to that...LBJ.

But I see your point. You have no ability to consider voting for the Republicans...which brings me back to...why do you care who they nominate?


Actually I've voted for Republicans in the past. I have not voted for a Republican for POTUS because in my opinion the Democrats were better candidates. I've voted for Republicans for US Congress and for State-wide office (although, to be fair, I haven't voted for a Republican for Governor)

Once again, it's important that a good, sane candidate run on the right. If one of the loons gets the nod, the debate will be shifted away from anything possibly productive into hurrrrr-durrrrr socialism land (which may be inevitable one way or the other once the PACs get involved)
 
2012-01-11 12:29:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.

Is...is this a thing?

I kind of want to try this now.


It isn't, as far as I know. However, I got the idea from the fact that high-end steakhouses often gild their steak with brushed-on butter to make it taste better. Never had the opportunity to put this idea into action, though, since the last time I cooked properly, I also set myself on fire.
 
2012-01-11 12:30:04 PM  

RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.

Is...is this a thing?

I kind of want to try this now.

It isn't, as far as I know. However, I got the idea from the fact that high-end steakhouses often gild their steak with brushed-on butter to make it taste better. Never had the opportunity to put this idea into action, though, since the last time I cooked properly, I also set myself on fire.


Oh, wait, come to think of it, I think some places grill their hamburger with brushed on butter as well.
 
2012-01-11 12:32:17 PM  

RexTalionis: RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.

Is...is this a thing?

I kind of want to try this now.

It isn't, as far as I know. However, I got the idea from the fact that high-end steakhouses often gild their steak with brushed-on butter to make it taste better. Never had the opportunity to put this idea into action, though, since the last time I cooked properly, I also set myself on fire.

Oh, wait, come to think of it, I think some places grill their hamburger with brushed on butter as well.


Grilled and buttered bun is common.
 
2012-01-11 12:32:48 PM  

RexTalionis: RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.

Is...is this a thing?

I kind of want to try this now.

It isn't, as far as I know. However, I got the idea from the fact that high-end steakhouses often gild their steak with brushed-on butter to make it taste better. Never had the opportunity to put this idea into action, though, since the last time I cooked properly, I also set myself on fire.

Oh, wait, come to think of it, I think some places grill their hamburger with brushed on butter as well.


I will try this idea next time!
 
2012-01-11 12:33:10 PM  
Even if he did get fired, he has enough family connections that he'd have another cushy job by the end of the day.
 
2012-01-11 12:34:29 PM  

eddyatwork: Even if he did get fired, he has enough family connections that he'd have another cushy job by the end of the day.


To be fair, at the end of his term of Governor, he had a few days of dislocation about adjusting his health plan. It was very nerve wracking.
 
2012-01-11 12:39:05 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Headso: What's that line... Born on third, thinks he hit a triple?

I guess I'm on your ignore list, good to know.


nope, just missed your post there, it happens...
 
2012-01-11 01:13:19 PM  

hubiestubert: eddyatwork: Even if he did get fired, he has enough family connections that he'd have another cushy job by the end of the day.

To be fair, at the end of his term of Governor, his accountant had a few minutes of dislocation about adjusting his health plan. It was very nerve wracking.

 
2012-01-11 01:31:54 PM  

RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.


I thought it was "if you don't like your hamburger deep fried..."

/why yes, it does exist.
 
2012-01-11 02:07:54 PM  
I bet he worries about the price of arugula, too, just like normal americans.
 
2012-01-11 02:11:10 PM  
I don't know what you're talking about, Subby. Mitt Romney is clearly a self-made man. He put in decades of work before he was conceived to choose American parents who were high-class millionaires who would be able to give him every nepotistic advantage possible. If you can't see that, you're a nuclear weapons-grade moron.
 
2012-01-11 02:11:31 PM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.


Actually, I consider myself fairly liberal (socially) and I'd sooner vote for Huntsman & his magic underwear than Obama. Obama's signature of the NDAA, especially, bothers me. It's all the other nutcases in the election, and Two-fa - err Romney - that scared the shiat out of me.
 
2012-01-11 02:13:01 PM  
Since when is "delusional" a negative in a Republican candidate?
 
2012-01-11 02:13:08 PM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.


Everybody look at the silly man who doesn't know what an "Open Primary" is, and that Massachusetts is an Open Primary state, and laugh!

Dude, where do you think RONPAUL got all those votes?

From registered Republicans?

You are a very silly man.
 
2012-01-11 02:13:40 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: RexTalionis: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: RexTalionis: Have you noticed that, in the past election cycle, with Mitt Romney as the apparent Republican frontrunner, nobody is calling Obama an elitist anymore?

I'm sure Mitt Romney doesn't put the wrong kind of condiment on his fast food.

If you don't like mustard butter on a Hamburger, you are un-American.

I thought it was "if you don't like your hamburger deep fried..."

/why yes, it does exist.


If you don't like your hamburger made of three hamburgers and topped with bacon, cheese and another hamburger...
 
2012-01-11 02:13:55 PM  
Mitt the Twit ...
 
2012-01-11 02:15:17 PM  

I_C_Weener: Peter von Nostrand: I_C_Weener: Peter von Nostrand: But hey, that's just me

And you'd vote for such a Republican? Say...McCain, Dole, Bush 1, Jack Kemp, Reagan, Ford, Nixon...how far back you want me to go?

I don't know, who are they running against? Would you vote for a Democrat? How far back do you want to go? In my opinion the right wing has lost it's mind and your hypothetical doesn't change this. None of those guys are running and several of them are dead

I'd probably consider Hillary at this point. Bill if I could go back and change a vote. Prior to that...LBJ.

But I see your point. You have no ability to consider voting for the Republicans...which brings me back to...why do you care who they nominate?


I am sure lots of liberals would, at this point, vote for Reagan or Nixon in their prime over Obama. But the Republicans are offering psychotic loons.
 
2012-01-11 02:15:47 PM  

I_C_Weener: Its been clear for months that Romney was the nominee, yet the liberals (media and on Fark) and the conservatives....are all acting like it matters personally to them. As Adlai Stevenson (maybe wrong guy) once said, "The people have spoken....the bastards."


the media and all the associated parties have a vested interest in continueing the idea that this race has an actual chance of being something other than annoiting romney because they make their money off of keeping people watching. Why watch these political 24/7 news channels and special reports and election night round tables if they come out and say "Romney is going to win" at the very begining?

The truth of this primary is that Romney was always going to win because he has the most money. He can run the attack ads and he has organized ground teams in every important state. He also doesn't have/need a job so he could campaign full time for 7 years. But having a pundit just say "the rich white guy wins because he is rich and white" and ending your special election coverage does not sell advertising space, so they pretend its a real contest.
 
2012-01-11 02:17:52 PM  
The whole world in front of him, every advantage in life, advantages I never had...
that's not exactly true. He had the same advantages I had,
which is a hell of a lot of advantages.
 
2012-01-11 02:18:36 PM  

Headso: nope, just missed your post there, it happens...


Anybody else notice the lack of collie-molestation denial, there.

Must be another breed, maybe a Sheltie, they kind of look alike, easy enough mistake to make for the casual observer....
 
2012-01-11 02:19:14 PM  
Almost every rich person who was handed everything in their life thinks they did everything themselves.


If you were rich and got things handed to you and you are :

You think you did it all yourself. - Republican.
You are aware you got many breaks others don't get. - Democrat

Really I bet if you asked people It would break down to being 99% correct. Republicans love to believe they never got any help even though that is never true.
 
2012-01-11 02:19:17 PM  

beta_plus: I bet he worries about the price of arugula, too, just like normal americans.


I worry about the price of broccoli. Does that make me an elitist?

/$5 for 2 small heads??!!!??
//This is an outrage.jpg
 
2012-01-11 02:19:58 PM  

NuttierThanEver: To paraphrase Molly Ivins she said something similar about Dubya that applies.
He was born on third base and grew up thinking he hit a triple.


Molly lives...

I wonder what she'd say about Mitt's father being born in Mexico, while Grandpa practiced the ancient art of Polygamy.
 
2012-01-11 02:20:07 PM  
Born on third, thinks he hit a triple. Talk about Bush Jr. Redux.
 
2012-01-11 02:22:37 PM  

Exception Collection: Actually, I consider myself fairly liberal (socially) and I'd sooner vote for Huntsman & his magic underwear than Obama. Obama's signature of the NDAA, especially, bothers me. It's all the other nutcases in the election, and Two-fa - err Romney - that scared the shiat out of me.


You know that NDAA is a Republican add-on? Obama biatched about it and said he wouldn't enforce it when he signed it.

Every damn GOP candidate (except RON PAUL) in the primaries would sign it, but please go on being stupid.
 
2012-01-11 02:23:25 PM  
Remember, he's unemployed!
 
2012-01-11 02:23:54 PM  

culebra: Born on third, thinks he hit a triple. Talk about Bush Jr. Redux.


It's amusing how Republicans always scream about affirmative action (which really doesn't even exist anymore) but they have no problems with white rich kids who get admitted to prestigious colleges because they are the son of rich and powerful people. Never seem to hear them say they don't want colleges giving admission points any more for that or for legacy students or based on ability to pay.
 
2012-01-11 02:26:19 PM  

Corvus: Almost every rich person who was handed everything in their life thinks they did everything themselves.


If you were rich and got things handed to you and you are :

You think you did it all yourself. - Republican.
You are aware you got many breaks others don't get. - Democrat

Really I bet if you asked people It would break down to being 99% correct. Republicans love to believe they never got any help even though that is never true.


Yep.

The biggest complainer about taxes and social programs I know has an autistic child that gets sent to a special school. That costs the taxpayer more than $80k a year.
 
2012-01-11 02:26:29 PM  

madgonad: You know that NDAA is a Republican add-on? Obama biatched about it and said he wouldn't enforce it when he signed it.


not just that he got it watered down too. Pretty much it's what courts have already said the executive branch can do already. Yeah it sucks that it is more codified now but politically it would of been hard for him to have vetoed the entire bill just on that.
 
2012-01-11 02:28:08 PM  

madgonad: You know that NDAA is a Republican add-on? Obama biatched about it and said he wouldn't enforce it when he signed it.

Every damn GOP candidate (except RON PAUL) in the primaries would sign it, but please go on being stupid.


I knew it was a R add-on, but I didn't know coontil now) that Hunstman explicitly supported it. I guess he's not quite as good as I thought.

Paul's out because of his asinine views on LGBT rights, and his foolishness when it comes to financial issues.

I don't care if it will be enforced or not, I care that it was *signed*. He should have vetoed it, period.
 
2012-01-11 02:28:42 PM  

madgonad: The biggest complainer about taxes and social programs I know has an autistic child that gets sent to a special school. That costs the taxpayer more than $80k a year.


Hahah!

I also know knew a conservative who biatched and moaned about government spending and also has her son in the same type of program. It's like "Hey, you know when Republicans are talking about government 'waste' they are talking about the program for your kid". She can't put that together. To them government spending is always money "other people" get.
 
2012-01-11 02:30:21 PM  
Basically, Romney is a slicker, Mormoner version of Bush.
 
2012-01-11 02:30:44 PM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs.


Thousands of comedians' jobs are on the line. Santorum winning the primary could start a new comedic Renaissance.
 
2012-01-11 02:30:52 PM  

Exception Collection: I don't care if it will be enforced or not, I care that it was *signed*. He should have vetoed it, period.


But it was part of the entire defense bill. If he would of vetoed it just for that he would of been demolished politically. Just because you don't like politics doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't exist.

Some I believe mostly Democrat senators are working on pulling that out now. Are you doing anything to support that? Or just biatching?
 
2012-01-11 02:30:55 PM  

Exception Collection: madgonad: You know that NDAA is a Republican add-on? Obama biatched about it and said he wouldn't enforce it when he signed it.

Every damn GOP candidate (except RON PAUL) in the primaries would sign it, but please go on being stupid.

I knew it was a R add-on, but I didn't know coontil now) that Hunstman explicitly supported it. I guess he's not quite as good as I thought.

Paul's out because of his asinine views on LGBT rights, and his foolishness when it comes to financial issues.

I don't care if it will be enforced or not, I care that it was *signed*. He should have vetoed it, period.


DHS has gotten bigger and more invasive on Obama's watch too. GITMO/and Detainees haven't really been given any more rights either.

Obama is much the same as Bush on issues of "security" and "civil rights". It is sad. I actually hoped he'd be different in these areas, but expected pretty much this.
 
2012-01-11 02:33:14 PM  

I_C_Weener: GITMO/and Detainees haven't really been given any more rights either.


He tried to close it down, congress stopped it. He is the president not the dictator of the United States.'

I_C_Weener: Obama is much the same as Bush on issues of "security" and "civil rights".


What how about DADT repeal and no longer supporting the defense of DOMA? That's the same as Bush?
 
2012-01-11 02:33:36 PM  
Romney delusional? Nothing new in that when it comes to Republican presidents.
 
2012-01-11 02:34:20 PM  

Exception Collection: I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.

Actually, I consider myself fairly liberal (socially) and I'd sooner vote for Huntsman & his magic underwear than Obama. Obama's signature of the NDAA, especially, bothers me. It's all the other nutcases in the election, and Two-fa - err Romney - that scared the shiat out of me.


What about NDAA do you object to, and why?
 
2012-01-11 02:35:00 PM  
Look Mitt, and all richers I guess,

We don't dislike you because you have more than we do, or even the fact that you don't now, nor have you ever, had to worry about where your next meal is coming from. We accept that people have more than us and we're fine with it. Would we like more than we currently have? Sure! Who wouldn't? Even the richest man in the world would give it all up for a little more.

Our problem stems from when you try to pull this "See? I'm just a regular Joe like you! Hey look! I'm unemployed too! I used to have to worry about losing my job as well, lemme tell you!" Everyone knows you're richer than farking God himself and that you've never, ever ever ever, wanted for food or clothing or wondered if you were going to have a roof over your head next month. So when you try to talk about the struggles you've encountered in your life as if they're anything even remotely approaching the stuff that those of us who didn't or don't have a lot had to go through, well, you come across as kind of a disconnected dickhole.

In short, we're not jealous of your success, we just think you're an asshole. You're rich, and you always have been, just own it. A tough upbringing that'll score you points with the pleebs is one of the few things money can't buy.
 
2012-01-11 02:35:18 PM  

Exception Collection: madgonad: You know that NDAA is a Republican add-on? Obama biatched about it and said he wouldn't enforce it when he signed it.

Every damn GOP candidate (except RON PAUL) in the primaries would sign it, but please go on being stupid.

I knew it was a R add-on, but I didn't know coontil now) that Hunstman explicitly supported it. I guess he's not quite as good as I thought.

Paul's out because of his asinine views on LGBT rights, and his foolishness when it comes to financial issues.

I don't care if it will be enforced or not, I care that it was *signed*. He should have vetoed it, period.


He HAD to sign it. Otherwise the government would go into shut-down mode again. The economy really can't handle another round of that.

Huntsman is kind of like HW Bush. However, he has the Mormon cloud over him and the very close ties to Asia can work both for or against him. Someone has to run against Obama, and I would rather have a sane GOP contender in November if it ever comes to light that Obama is a reverse-vampire or something.

/I have dreams about going to the polls and seeing two or three names and having to decide which one is more awesome
//Instead, I have 22 years of voting AGAINST one idiot or the other (yes, I have voted for MANY Republicans)
 
2012-01-11 02:37:43 PM  

madgonad: /I have dreams about going to the polls and seeing two or three names and having to decide which one is more awesome


That's an odd thing to dream about.
 
2012-01-11 02:38:18 PM  
The problem is that tens of millions of Americans believe that the rich are working in their interests and that people poorer than themselves are the enemy.
 
2012-01-11 02:39:33 PM  

I_C_Weener: But I see your point. You have no ability to consider voting for the Republicans...which brings me back to...why do you care who they nominate?


If they nominate Newt, I won't have to donate as much to the Obama campaign in the fall.

/Somewhat facetious.
 
2012-01-11 02:41:38 PM  

Corvus: But it was part of the entire defense bill. If he would of vetoed it just for that he would of been demolished politically.


This wouldn't be a valid point even if his signing statement substantively disagreed with the ideas in the NDAA. Setting the precedent he's setting - especially with the weasel wording within the signing statement - is incredibly dangerous. Governments do not easily give up power.

Corvus: He tried to close it down, congress stopped it. He is the president not the dictator of the United States.'


He has the authority to direct the military to treat them under full protections of prisoners of war, and force prosecution on those he wishes to treat as more. Instead, he's maintaining the idea of 'enemy combatants' as a separate definition.

I_C_Weener: GITMO/and Detainees haven't really been given any more rights either.


Not true. See the EO Obama issued that officially ended torture and extraordinary rendition. Not quite where we should be, but they were significant improvements.

Corvus: What how about DADT repeal and no longer supporting the defense of DOMA?


Noble steps towards a goal, but not enough to somehow balance even just the above.
 
2012-01-11 02:41:43 PM  

farkityfarker: The problem is that tens of millions of Americans believe that the rich are working in their interests and that people poorer than themselves are the enemy.


Or, the Tea Party.

//obviously, you're not into that whole brevity thing.
 
2012-01-11 02:42:45 PM  

Corvus: madgonad: The biggest complainer about taxes and social programs I know has an autistic child that gets sent to a special school. That costs the taxpayer more than $80k a year.

Hahah!

I also know knew a conservative who biatched and moaned about government spending and also has her son in the same type of program. It's like "Hey, you know when Republicans are talking about government 'waste' they are talking about the program for your kid". She can't put that together. To them government spending is always money "other people" get.


My friend lives across the state line, so I don't have to pay for it. He only has one kid and his wife doesn't have a job (and he works from home). Not sure why they need $80k+ day care.

/he is an awesome kid though
//I happily pay my taxes to help those in need
///just get pissed when others that DO receive more than they pay are biatching about it
 
2012-01-11 02:43:11 PM  

beta_plus: I bet he worries about the price of arugula, too, just like normal americans.


You can grow arugula, it's really easy. It's always nice to have some fresh greens around, it's also very good for you.
 
2012-01-11 02:43:13 PM  
Another Republican asshole born on third yet claims he hit a triple.

Shocking, isn't it?
 
2012-01-11 02:45:08 PM  

RexTalionis: madgonad: /I have dreams about going to the polls and seeing two or three names and having to decide which one is more awesome

That's an odd thing to dream about.


Everyone dreams about things they will never have. I also have dreams about shagging Angelina Jolie and Christina Hendricks. None of those things are ever likely to happen.
 
2012-01-11 02:45:59 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: But it was part of the entire defense bill. If he would of vetoed it just for that he would of been demolished politically.

This wouldn't be a valid point even if his signing statement substantively disagreed with the ideas in the NDAA. Setting the precedent he's setting - especially with the weasel wording within the signing statement - is incredibly dangerous. Governments do not easily give up power.

Corvus: He tried to close it down, congress stopped it. He is the president not the dictator of the United States.'

He has the authority to direct the military to treat them under full protections of prisoners of war, and force prosecution on those he wishes to treat as more. Instead, he's maintaining the idea of 'enemy combatants' as a separate definition.

I_C_Weener: GITMO/and Detainees haven't really been given any more rights either.

Not true. See the EO Obama issued that officially ended torture and extraordinary rendition. Not quite where we should be, but they were significant improvements.

Corvus: What how about DADT repeal and no longer supporting the defense of DOMA?

Noble steps towards a goal, but not enough to somehow balance even just the above.


Politics is about compromise. We've seen one side refuse to compromise and it has skewed the perception of many people. Even Barry Goldwater and Ted Kennedy understood this and did just that.
 
2012-01-11 02:46:37 PM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway.


It must be deeply confusing to you why people care who gets nominated for Oscars. They don't get to vote for that at all.
 
2012-01-11 02:47:45 PM  

CPennypacker: Remember, he's unemployed!


And I'll bet he's not accepting any unemployment benefits. A true hero for all bootstrappers!
 
2012-01-11 02:48:10 PM  

madgonad: RexTalionis: madgonad: /I have dreams about going to the polls and seeing two or three names and having to decide which one is more awesome

That's an odd thing to dream about.

Everyone dreams about things they will never have. I also have dreams about shagging Angelina Jolie and Christina Hendricks. None of those things are ever likely to happen.


Sometimes, I dream about hunting deer naked in an ancient forest.

/Actually, that might happen.
 
2012-01-11 02:50:12 PM  

madgonad: RexTalionis: madgonad: /I have dreams about going to the polls and seeing two or three names and having to decide which one is more awesome

That's an odd thing to dream about.

Everyone dreams about things they will never have. I also have dreams about shagging Angelina Jolie and Christina Hendricks. None of those things are ever likely to happen.


But the real question is: Do you dream about shagging Angelina Jolie and Christina Hendricks in a voting booth?
 
2012-01-11 02:50:19 PM  

xalres: In short, we're not jealous of your success, we just think you're an asshole. You're rich, and you always have been, just own it. A tough upbringing that'll score you points with the pleebs is one of the few things money can't buy.


If only they invented a term to describe his hypocrisy and why folks dislike hypocrites... maybe urbandictionary has something
 
2012-01-11 02:50:32 PM  
Next: Romney will say, "I'm not a witch. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you."
 
2012-01-11 02:51:32 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Politics is about compromise.


Not when the action requires no compromise to commit. His signing statement could have listed a much more restrained interpretation of the AUMF, rendering the language in the NDAA unenforceable. Instead, he said government has those powers by default and he's just choosing not to use it. The treatment of detainees can be changed by an executive order to be in accordance with full protections/rights of POWs.
 
2012-01-11 02:52:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But the real question is: Do you dream about shagging Angelina Jolie and Christina Hendricks in a voting booth?


At the same time, stacked up like cordwood on the ballot table...
 
2012-01-11 02:53:29 PM  

I_C_Weener: why do you care who they nominate?


This is not Rocket Surgery. If Obama is defeated by the republican nominee, I would like it to be a nominee that is capable of effectively running the country. That is something you can say about one or two of the candidates and not the others. I'd rather they not nominate one of the wingnuts so that if the republican wins, it's not a wingnut winning.

Are you really so dense that you can only see things in such a two-dimensional way?
 
2012-01-11 02:54:28 PM  
Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Going to be a long year, Mitt.
 
2012-01-11 02:55:52 PM  
Yeah but subbby unfortunately delusional is a job requirement if you are a Republican candidate.
 
2012-01-11 02:58:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But the real question is: Do you dream about shagging Angelina Jolie and Christina Hendricks in a voting booth?


I will now.

/will need a bigger booth
//especially for Christina
 
2012-01-11 02:58:58 PM  

Splinshints: I_C_Weener: why do you care who they nominate?

This is not Rocket Surgery. If Obama is defeated by the republican nominee, I would like it to be a nominee that is capable of effectively running the country. That is something you can say about one or two of the candidates and not the others. I'd rather they not nominate one of the wingnuts so that if the republican wins, it's not a wingnut winning.

Are you really so dense that you can only see things in such a two-dimensional way?


I'd rather they nominate the wingnut who has no chance of winning
 
2012-01-11 02:59:27 PM  
I got a big secret for everybody: None of these politicians are self-made.

/Shhhhh...
 
2012-01-11 03:04:49 PM  

Exception Collection: madgonad: You know that NDAA is a Republican add-on? Obama biatched about it and said he wouldn't enforce it when he signed it.

Every damn GOP candidate (except RON PAUL) in the primaries would sign it, but please go on being stupid.

I knew it was a R add-on, but I didn't know coontil now) that Hunstman explicitly supported it. I guess he's not quite as good as I thought.

Paul's out because of his asinine views on LGBT rights, and his foolishness when it comes to financial issues.

I don't care if it will be enforced or not, I care that it was *signed*. He should have vetoed it, period.


do you know what NDAA stands for? Are you under misapprehension that it was some sort of stand-alone bill? NDAA stands for National Defense Authorization Act and it contains the entire budget for the DOD for the entire year. Because Congress has been so worthless this year, it was getting passed literally DAYS before the Pentagon ran out of money and had to start stiffing soldiers on their pay.

There is no Line item veto, so if Obama vetoed the NDAA he would have forced the military to essentially shut down-in the middle of a war. Obama forced revisions in the law that rendered it, in my professional legal judgment, completely toothless and nothing new.

So would vetoing the law, with all the negative consequences that would have had, really been the right thing to do? Think with your head and not your heart.
 
2012-01-11 03:06:39 PM  

Splinshints: I_C_Weener: why do you care who they nominate?

This is not Rocket Surgery. If Obama is defeated by the republican nominee, I would like it to be a nominee that is capable of effectively running the country. That is something you can say about one or two of the candidates and not the others. I'd rather they not nominate one of the wingnuts so that if the republican wins, it's not a wingnut winning.


On top of that, having a rational GOP contender - even if they have no chance of winning the general - could shift the political tone in the country drastically. Someone like RONPAUL (as much as I dislike him) in a debate against Obama would be starkly different than Santorum or Romney against Obama.
 
2012-01-11 03:07:20 PM  
So if Romney wins the nomination, the choice will be between


A) A guy who actively profited from banking fraud, or

B) A guy who campaigned on prosecuting fraud, then rolled over and has facilitated banks being given a free pass on prosecution.

Decisions decisions.
 
2012-01-11 03:08:11 PM  
Anybody remember whether I_C_Weener had any opinions about Obama during the last presidential election? I'm sure he had none, since he wasn't going to vote for the Democrat anyway.
 
2012-01-11 03:09:10 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: I got a big secret for everybody: None of these politicians are self-made.

/Shhhhh...


Obama? Pray tell, what silver spoon family was be born into? The king of Kenya?
 
2012-01-11 03:13:51 PM  

Magorn: Obama forced revisions in the law that rendered it, in my professional legal judgment, completely toothless and nothing new.


In what respect, Charlie?
 
2012-01-11 03:19:17 PM  

Generation_D: funk_soul_bubby: I got a big secret for everybody: None of these politicians are self-made.

/Shhhhh...

Obama? Pray tell, what silver spoon family was be born into? The king of Kenya?


I made no mention of family. I put it in bold so you can read it again.
 
2012-01-11 03:22:22 PM  

sprawl15: Magorn: Obama forced revisions in the law that rendered it, in my professional legal judgment, completely toothless and nothing new.

In what respect, Charlie?


1) Remove head from asshole.

2) Read up on the subject from an emotionally subdued, technocratic perspective. Link (new window)

3) Learn something!
 
2012-01-11 03:29:40 PM  
Generation_D

That came off as somewhat crass. I was speaking more to the fact that none of them get to where they are without a substantial investment from others to elevate them to their positions.
 
2012-01-11 03:35:30 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: Generation_D: funk_soul_bubby: I got a big secret for everybody: None of these politicians are self-made.

/Shhhhh...

Obama? Pray tell, what silver spoon family was be born into? The king of Kenya?

I made no mention of family. I put it in bold so you can read it again.


Nonetheless, Obama got into the position where others wanted to invest to elevate him on his own. Romney/Bush? They were born into positions where unearned status helped get them to that position. It's why Obama ran his campaign as though he had to earn his way to the presidency, and Romney/Bush ran/are running their campaigns as though they're self-entitled to be president.

Has anyone else noticed that about Romney? How he just feels entitled to be president?
 
2012-01-11 03:38:31 PM  
Listen guys, if he had lost his job, the only thing he would have had left is tons of money, real estate, investments, and a wealthy, connected family. We've all been there.
 
2012-01-11 03:39:45 PM  

xalres: A tough upbringing that'll score you points with the pleebs is one of the few things money can't buy.


this is a good quote.
 
2012-01-11 03:41:04 PM  

bugontherug: Read up on the subject from an emotionally subdued, technocratic perspective.


Hey look, a list of shiat I already know with some improper conclusions tacked on. How neat!

He spends whole paragraphs describing that the scope of allowable targets isn't really expanding before admitting it is. He understates the value of Hamdi, a SCOTUS case, by saying that Padilla, a circuit case, contradicted it in spirit. Worst is his explanation of how military detention is not required. He's purposely loading the questions so he can say they're wrong on technicalities, while failing to address any of the substantive problems.
 
2012-01-11 03:41:10 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: I care about who runs because I want a sane Republican party return.


That ship sailed with Eisenhower. There ain't no going back.
 
2012-01-11 03:45:10 PM  

I_C_Weener: gameshowhost: I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway.

What's the alternative -- one of the GOP retards? They're not even *trying* any more.

See? You don't care who they nominate. They could nominate Zombie Mother Teresa and you'd vote Obama.

Its been clear for months that Romney was the nominee, yet the liberals (media and on Fark) and the conservatives....are all acting like it matters personally to them. As Adlai Stevenson (maybe wrong guy) once said, "The people have spoken....the bastards."


Not to speak for anyone but myself, but I happen to care because I ... well... I care about our nations politics. It's why I hang around on this tab, why I read people's commentary as much as the articles themselves, and why I feel compelled from time to time to respond. Interest and participation in our democracy is probably step number 1 to saving it.

It DOES matter personally to me, not because of who "my team" is going to face, but because the nomination process is A) interesting, for both parties, and B) a great indicator of our country's political climate.
 
2012-01-11 03:46:38 PM  
Which is a problem because "delusional" is a bad thing for a president to be

So I take it subby isn't going to be voting for Obama?
 
2012-01-11 03:46:39 PM  

Headso: xalres: A tough upbringing that'll score you points with the pleebs is one of the few things money can't buy.

this is a good quote.


I'm surprised that Mitt isn't talking about his childhood as the son of a poor Mexican immigrant.
 
2012-01-11 03:47:46 PM  
I used to worry about getting fired too, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
 
2012-01-11 03:49:48 PM  

bugontherug:

Nonetheless, Obama got into the position where others wanted to invest to elevate him on his own.


Wait, what? Of course he did- that's what campaigns are.

That'd be like saying a person born into poverty who worked their way up to CEO isn't self-made because "he got himself into a position where others wanted him to run a company".
 
2012-01-11 03:50:03 PM  

Generation_D: So if Romney wins the nomination, the choice will be between


A) A guy who actively profited from banking fraud, or

B) A guy who campaigned on prosecuting fraud, then rolled over and has facilitated banks being given a free pass on prosecution.

Decisions decisions.


my opinion on obama is largely decided on whether i'm comparing him to the almighty*, or the competition.

the former isn't much of a competition, but...the latter damn sure isn't either.


*topically, i'd guess that translates to an actual candidate i like every aspect of
 
2012-01-11 03:50:57 PM  

Magorn: Obama forced revisions in the law that rendered it, in my professional legal judgment, completely toothless and nothing new.


Coming from you, that puts me at greater ease than most commentary I've heard on the matter of NDAA. I have been hearing the "nothing new" argument from a few folks now, but anyone who has a "All Time Second Favorite Judicial Smackdown" is probably in a better position to comment than, say, me.

Mind explaining to a layman what you mean by "there is no line item veto"?
 
2012-01-11 03:53:50 PM  

BeesNuts: Mind explaining to a layman what you mean by "there is no line item veto"?


Presidents must veto the entire bill - he cannot veto individual line items in a bill. This differs from the powers of some state governors who do have the power to cross out items in a bill.

Actually, in Wisconsin, the Governor's line-item veto power is so powerful, the governor can cross out individual words to create a new legislation by cobbling together parts of sentences, possibly negating the legislative intent.
 
2012-01-11 03:54:50 PM  

BeesNuts: Mind explaining to a layman what you mean by "there is no line item veto"?


Well, there is a thing called a line item veto but it is not allowed in this country. /snark off

Basically, it means that Obama would have to either veto the whole thing and delay the passing of the rest of the bill (a defense funding bill) which could be dangerous and/or irresponsible or just go ahead and sign the whole thing. Were he to have a line item veto, he could just veto those sections and sign the rest.
 
2012-01-11 03:56:15 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: Read up on the subject from an emotionally subdued, technocratic perspective.

Hey look, a list of shiat I already know with some improper conclusions tacked on. How neat!

He spends whole paragraphs describing that the scope of allowable targets isn't really expanding before admitting it is. He understates the value of Hamdi, a SCOTUS case, by saying that Padilla, a circuit case, contradicted it in spirit. Worst is his explanation of how military detention is not required. He's purposely loading the questions so he can say they're wrong on technicalities, while failing to address any of the substantive problems.


Notably absent from your post: any actual discussion of the "substantive problems." That would be because the "substantive problems" you imagine exist are either a) addressed in his post, or b) non-existent.
 
2012-01-11 03:58:00 PM  

Generation_D: So if Romney wins the nomination, the choice will be between


A) A guy who actively profited from banking fraud, or

B) A guy who campaigned on prosecuting fraud, then rolled over and has facilitated banks being given a free pass on prosecution.

Decisions decisions.


Oh jesus. How, exactly, did Romney profit from banking fraud? Do you guys just make things up or just assume anyone who has done better than you in life is a criminal?
 
2012-01-11 03:59:13 PM  

hitchking: bugontherug:

Nonetheless, Obama got into the position where others wanted to invest to elevate him on his own.

Wait, what? Of course he did- that's what campaigns are.

That'd be like saying a person born into poverty who worked their way up to CEO isn't self-made because "he got himself into a position where others wanted him to run a company".


You don't seem to understand. Obama really is a self-made man. He was a successful attorney and professor before he became a politician. He earned his way to those positions, which benefited him when he ran for office. Romney/Bush were handed status. Obama earned status.
 
2012-01-11 04:01:14 PM  

dalovindj: I used to worry about getting fired too, but then I took an arrow to the knee.


I don't know where this meme comes from, but it is funny!
 
2012-01-11 04:04:42 PM  
Hasn't he started his own company and so on? So at least he's been trying to make his own way instead of coasting on his family.

I mean, "self-made" is kind of an approximation anyhow, it's not like anyone succeeds in a vacuum. If nothing else, you need other people to buy your stuff, and in most cases you're going to need investors making an initial monetary show of confidence, some sort of mentoring or education to show you how to not screw it completely, etc. The term generally just means that your choices are one of the major factors in your own success, not that there are no other factors.

//Hell, anyone that's been even marginally involved in the running of a business will tell you that simple luck is always a factor, too.
 
2012-01-11 04:07:55 PM  

Rann Xerox: dalovindj: I used to worry about getting fired too, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

I don't know where this meme comes from, but it is funny!


Read and learn, Dovahkiin. (new window)
 
2012-01-11 04:08:20 PM  

bugontherug: hitchking: bugontherug:

Nonetheless, Obama got into the position where others wanted to invest to elevate him on his own.

Wait, what? Of course he did- that's what campaigns are.

That'd be like saying a person born into poverty who worked their way up to CEO isn't self-made because "he got himself into a position where others wanted him to run a company".

You don't seem to understand. Obama really is a self-made man. He was a successful attorney and professor before he became a politician. He earned his way to those positions, which benefited him when he ran for office. Romney/Bush were handed status. Obama earned status.


But I heard that he never held any job of any kind before being elected to the Senate.
 
2012-01-11 04:09:26 PM  

sprawl15: He spends whole paragraphs describing that the scope of allowable targets isn't really expanding before admitting it is.


See, what you don't understand is, that's what's called "objective, forthright analysis." He did not say NDAA expands the list of allowable targets. Rather, after spending whole paragraphs factually detailing why it does not, he acknowledges:

"The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta only-that is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue. In theory, then, the circuit (or the Supreme Court) might at some point have concluded that support alone is insufficient to support a detention."

That is to say, he acknowledges that if you disbelieve the government, and the court dicta, both of which say this authority already existed, then it might be said NDAA expands detention authority. But if you believe both the government, and the court dicta, which reasonable people have good cause to do, then NDAA doesn't expand detention authority at all.

Had you been so objective and forthright in your post, you would have said, "he spends paragraphs explaining his NDAA doesn't expand detention authority before acknowledging a theoretical argument that it does." The difference between your approach and his: he has credibility, you do not. You've revealed you have an axe to grind. He does not.
 
2012-01-11 04:11:08 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: bugontherug: hitchking: bugontherug:

Nonetheless, Obama got into the position where others wanted to invest to elevate him on his own.

Wait, what? Of course he did- that's what campaigns are.

That'd be like saying a person born into poverty who worked their way up to CEO isn't self-made because "he got himself into a position where others wanted him to run a company".

You don't seem to understand. Obama really is a self-made man. He was a successful attorney and professor before he became a politician. He earned his way to those positions, which benefited him when he ran for office. Romney/Bush were handed status. Obama earned status.

But I heard that he never held any job of any kind before being elected to the Senate.


Heh.
 
2012-01-11 04:13:30 PM  

bugontherug: hitchking: bugontherug:

Nonetheless, Obama got into the position where others wanted to invest to elevate him on his own.

Wait, what? Of course he did- that's what campaigns are.

That'd be like saying a person born into poverty who worked their way up to CEO isn't self-made because "he got himself into a position where others wanted him to run a company".

You don't seem to understand. Obama really is a self-made man. He was a successful attorney and professor before he became a politician. He earned his way to those positions, which benefited him when he ran for office. Romney/Bush were handed status. Obama earned status.


Oh, sorry- I meant to reply to funk_soul_bubby. I agree with you. My bad.
 
2012-01-11 04:16:17 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Hasn't he started his own company and so on? So at least he's been trying to make his own way instead of coasting on his family.


Well, that's a lot easier when you have millions in start-up capital, plus solid business/family connections that get you more.
 
2012-01-11 04:22:29 PM  

bugontherug: Notably absent from your post: any actual discussion of the "substantive problems."


Notably absent from your post: anything but copypasta. Do you have an actual opinion, or are you just a particularly advanced form of advertising?

Simple examples:

1) He asks "Does the NDAA expand the government's detention authority?" and answers with a nice, simple "Nope." Then, three paragraphs later, he admits that authority has actually been expanded and he's basing his opinion on the lack of use of the newly expanded authority:
The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta only-that is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue.

2) He asks, "Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?", and answers "No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either." This is a bit of a misnomer. The authorization to detain citizens stems from the AUMF rather than the NDAA, and this simply codifies it into law. While the NDAA is not the source of that authority, it certainly embraces it - including the signing statement. Citizenship only protects one from the requirement for military detainment prior to disposition. His waffling about Padilla is largely irrelevant, as Hamdi is pretty clear:
There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U.S., at 20. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war." Id., at 37-38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities.

3) He asks, "Does it mandate military detention of terrorist suspects?" and answers "Not really". While he's correct that the slightly different definitions remove certain classes of people who are 'covered people' under 1031 from mandatory detainment under 1032, the mandatory detainment under 1032 is - in fact - mandatory. The delta between the two definitions is almost entirely a class of substanceless supporters. The bulk of the rest of his argument is that the mandatory military detainment is simply a middle ground: because people are allowed to be detained only as long as it takes to dispose them, it somehow makes that detainment non-mandatory. This argument is mixing the indefinite detention disposition (which is not mandated) with the military detainment requirement middle ground which is. 1032 is not vague about this:
Except as provided in paragraph (4) [specific exception made by SecDef, SecState, and DNI convening and submitting such exception to Congress], the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
 
2012-01-11 04:23:23 PM  
He understates the value of Hamdi, a SCOTUS case, by saying that Padilla, a circuit case, contradicted it in spirit.

Not only does he not claim that Padilla undermined Hamdi, but he reconciles the two cases, explaining how Padilla is best viewed as consistent with Hamdi:

"on appeal a Fourth Circuit panel held that Padilla could lawfully be detained after all-though in so holding, the panel focused on the factual assumption that Padilla had, like Hamdi, been on the battlefield in Afghanistan previously."
 
2012-01-11 04:29:13 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: Notably absent from your post: any actual discussion of the "substantive problems."

Notably absent from your post: anything but copypasta. Do you have an actual opinion, or are you just a particularly advanced form of advertising?

Simple examples:

1) He asks "Does the NDAA expand the government's detention authority?" and answers with a nice, simple "Nope." Then, three paragraphs later, he admits that authority has actually been expanded and he's basing his opinion on the lack of use of the newly expanded authority:

The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta only-that is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue.


The bolded accusation is comical because it's stated without the slightest hint of irony. My post, unlike yours, discussed the difference between an "admission," and his acknowledgment of a tenuous argument for a different point of view. Your post, by contrast, simply reasserts your original debunked claim, and then responds with a copypasta.

Let me explain it again: in his objective analysis, he acknowledges that viewed from the perspective that both the government and the court dicta are wrong, NDAA could be said to "expand" detention authority. But that viewpoint depends on an assumption at odds with convention.

Comedy gold Jerry! Comedy gold!
 
2012-01-11 04:29:58 PM  

bugontherug: Not only does he not claim that Padilla undermined Hamdi


I never said he 'undermined' it. I said he understated the value of Hamdi. Those are different things, you can notice because they use different words.

bugontherug: but he reconciles the two cases, explaining how Padilla is best viewed as consistent with Hamdi


No, he's bringing up Padilla as a potential place for the court to have ruled against citizen detention were the case not resolved otherwise. It could have been a very interesting case for determining constitutionality of detaining civilians caught on American soil, but since it didn't go to SCOTUS for such review, it's irrelevant in the context of SCOTUS precedent.
 
2012-01-11 04:36:20 PM  

bugontherug: Let me explain it again: in his objective analysis, he acknowledges that viewed from the perspective that both the government and the court dicta are wrong, NDAA could be said to "expand" detention authority.


...which is an expansion. Solidifying assumed expansion of scope is not substantially different than directly expanding the scope when the argument is that the scope of acceptable prisoners is larger than described within the AUMF. Assuming the government/court dicta were the source of the expansion and the NDAA merely codifies it, that's still an expansion of explicit legislative authority. Keep in mind, we're talking about powers that per the WPA are restricted strongly to the Legislative branch; the executive and judicial cannot simply meddle with legislative definitions of scope of AUMF without legislative involvement. That's why codification is such a big deal.
 
2012-01-11 04:39:58 PM  

hitchking: bugontherug: hitchking: bugontherug:

Nonetheless, Obama got into the position where others wanted to invest to elevate him on his own.

Wait, what? Of course he did- that's what campaigns are.

That'd be like saying a person born into poverty who worked their way up to CEO isn't self-made because "he got himself into a position where others wanted him to run a company".

You don't seem to understand. Obama really is a self-made man. He was a successful attorney and professor before he became a politician. He earned his way to those positions, which benefited him when he ran for office. Romney/Bush were handed status. Obama earned status.

Oh, sorry- I meant to reply to funk_soul_bubby. I agree with you. My bad.


Call me an absolutist, but no one is self-made. There are varying degrees to which each of us has help along the way, but I do understand your point.

Obama wasn't necessarily handed the keys to a Ferrari like some others but he didn't exactly come up from the the infantry in Viet Nam or the steel mills in Allentown to the Oval Office. He had plenty of help. Everybody catches breaks, and he's caught a few. Is that any reason to favor one's particular fortunes in life over another's, because they happened during their lifetime and not in their ancestors' lifetimes? I don't know, that's a matter of personal opinion.

Anecdote: My grandfather never finished high school but managed to work his way through a motley assortment of jobs after Korea to finally get a break when the owner of a trucking company decided he wanted him to run the shuttling service for his operation at USG. Now my grandfather earned that opportunity through his respect and his character, but he also got the chance because someone chose to invest in him. So again, I am probably being very precise with my interpretation of "self-made".

Why do we hate them? Because they're where we want to be. Because deep down all we're doing is trying to make the lives of our lineage better. But quibbling over whether or not someone was born into elite status or whether they abruptly arose to elite status within their lifetime, what's the point in splitting hairs? They're the elites. They are where they are and truth be told, they are where we would want our children or grandchildren to be. So why begrudge one over the other?

bugontherug: Has anyone else noticed that about Romney? How he just feels entitled to be president?


It's very noticeable. But it's noticeable with basically every other candidate, too. Anecdote 2: When I went into my last interview, I went in like that job was meant for me and was supposed to be mine. Because that's what you are when you want the job. Now this excludes candidates involved in raising their political profile, mind you.

I'm basically offering a non-partisan commentary on social status in America I guess. More often than not I read Pol threads as a silent observer, but it's interesting to me that this is divisive. The elites are the elites no matter how they got there.
 
2012-01-11 04:41:53 PM  
Which is a problem because "delusional" is a bad thing for a president to be

Give me a break.

The whole f*ckin country is delusional

How in the hell do you think we ended up circling the drain
 
2012-01-11 04:42:28 PM  

sprawl15: 2) He asks, "Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?", and answers "No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either." This is a bit of a misnomer. The authorization to detain citizens stems from the AUMF rather than the NDAA, and this simply codifies it into law. While the NDAA is not the source of that authority, it certainly embraces it - including the signing statement. Citizenship only protects one from the requirement for military detainment prior to disposition. His waffling about Padilla is largely irrelevant, as Hamdi is pretty clear:


Translation: he posed a legitimate question many readers have, he answered it truthfully with a caveat, and then explained the factual and legal background that puts the question into proper context. There are certain clues that this is his approach:

"During the administration of George W. Bush, the government used its detention authority under the AUMF (described above) in two instances involving U.S. citizens."

Do you see the bolded portion? That's the part where he acknowledges the claimed authority to detain citizens under the AUMF. He understands, objectively analyzes, and explains what you claim was a "misnomer."

Just because his organization differs from that you would choose doesn't make him shady, wrong, or irrelevant.

And you've completely misunderstood his discussion of Hamdi and Padilla. He does not claim that Padilla undermines Hamdi, but rather that viewed properly, it supports it. His whole point is that NDAA doesn't authorize anything not thought already authorized by all the major constitutional players.

And if you think there's something wrong with military detention of US citizens caught on the battlefield apparently fighting against US forces, you're nuts. There's nothing wrong with Hamdi's core holding except to the most batty libertarian. Hamdi even acknowledges such a person's right to a fair opportunity to show that the claims against him are incorrect. There's nothing wrong with Hamdi, and there's nothing wrong with Congress codifying Hamdi.
 
2012-01-11 04:48:25 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: Not only does he not claim that Padilla undermined Hamdi

I never said he 'undermined' it. I said he understated the value of Hamdi. Those are different things, you can notice because they use different words.


Yes, what you said was that he understated Hamdi by claiming Padilla contradicted it in spirit. Not only did his full paragraph discussion of Hamdi not "understate" it, but his follow up discussion of Padilla did the opposite of what you said it did. He does not claim Padilla "contradicts" Hamdi in any way. He says rather that read properly, Padilla is consistent with Hamdi.

Now, as to why I characterized your claim as saying Padilla "undermined" Hamdi: your original criticism implicitly was that he did not understand that a circuit case can't "contradict" a Supreme Court case. You were calling into question the bare competence of his capacity for legal analysis. Not only does he understand fully that a circuit case cannot "contradict" a Supreme Court case, but you've massively failed to understand what he said about the relationship between Hamdi and Padilla.
 
2012-01-11 04:50:35 PM  
"I used to worry about getting fired too, and then I realized I didn't have to 'cause my dad was a rich politician and a former CEO."
 
2012-01-11 04:51:14 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: Generation_D

That came off as somewhat crass. I was speaking more to the fact that none of them get to where they are without a substantial investment from others to elevate them to their positions.


This is halfway correct, as politicians have their backers and can't exist otherwise. But guys like Obama and Clinton used their brains and self-discipline to escape what would otherwise have been a mundane life. It's only after they had made significant accomplishments on their own that they were able to solicit support. It's no different from the idea of "self made" being building a better mousetrap and then pounding the pavement for investors. I don't see how mastering Harvard Law or being a Rhodes scholar is any different in terms of "self made."

While the Clintons and Obamas of the world got the ball rolling in their 20s, the Romneys had had it made as a birthright. That's what's so offensive about the whole "I'm just a regular Joe" BS pandering they try to sell.
 
2012-01-11 04:56:08 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: Let me explain it again: in his objective analysis, he acknowledges that viewed from the perspective that both the government and the court dicta are wrong, NDAA could be said to "expand" detention authority.

...which is an expansion. Solidifying assumed expansion of scope is not substantially different than directly expanding the scope when the argument is that the scope of acceptable prisoners is larger than described within the AUMF. Assuming the government/court dicta were the source of the expansion and the NDAA merely codifies it, that's still an expansion of explicit legislative authority. Keep in mind, we're talking about powers that per the WPA are restricted strongly to the Legislative branch; the executive and judicial cannot simply meddle with legislative definitions of scope of AUMF without legislative involvement. That's why codification is such a big deal.


Fantastic. You've made the argument for a different view of NDAA that he acknowledges but simply disagrees with. Your claim that he "failed to address" the "substantive criticisms" is just plain nutty. He addresses the substantive criticisms in the several paragraphs which are the subject of our discussion, and simply comes to a different conclusion than you. Why does he acknowledge your criticism? Not because he "admits" it. But rather, he's making full disclosure to naive readers, and offering his point of view.
 
2012-01-11 04:57:14 PM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.

Besides, Romney won't win against Obama. Why switch to a white Obama/Republican Lite when you can keep the same half-Republican Obama without a transition?

In fact, I predict a low turnout for the voting this Fall (barring some earth shattering event like war with Iran, Obama turning out to have a dead woman or live boy in his bed, or aliens)


It's probably been explained already but I don't have the time to read the thread yet, so excuse me if I'm repeating, but liberals and Democrats are not the same thing. I am very liberal but am an Independant. I would gladly have voted for Republican-turned Libertarian Gary Johnson over Obama, but he didn;t get enough GOP support. I still may vote for him if he makes the ballot here in Florida.
 
2012-01-11 04:57:58 PM  

bugontherug: That's the part where he acknowledges the claimed authority to detain citizens under the AUMF.


Authority to detain citizens coming from the AUMF does not prevent the NDAA from also authorizing it. It may be redundant, but that puts the answer into a categorical 'yes' rather than a 'no with caveats'.

bugontherug: And if you think there's something wrong with military detention of US citizens caught on the battlefield apparently fighting against US forces, you're nuts.


There's a problem in that traditional definitions do not clearly translate to asymmetric, global war of this nature. "The battlefield" has shifted to refer to hostile individuals rather than locations of hostile activity. Under standard, traditional exercise of war powers, it makes perfect sense. Under the auspices of the AUMF - with sole executive determination of who is a qualified target - such sense is blurred. Definitions pertaining to uniformed soldiers fighting each other should never have entered the conversation in the first place.

bugontherug: He does not claim Padilla "contradicts" Hamdi in any way. He says rather that read properly, Padilla is consistent with Hamdi.


He used Padilla as a setup for the idea that the authority to detain Padilla only lay in his material involvement in combat overseas, then said BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW. Hamdi made no such distinction - nor does such a distinction exist - yet because of the lower court rulings in favor of such an idea, he determined that the government simply hasn't decided: "the question of citizen detention has remained unsettled ever since". Padilla has no grounds to 'unsettle' such a question in the first place, and were it 'unsettled' regardless of Padilla, detailing the case in the leading manner he did would be irrelevant. The entire point of including Padilla is to introduce mistrust in the reader to back up his earlier wavering.

bugontherug: There's nothing wrong with Hamdi, and there's nothing wrong with Congress codifying Hamdi.


I never said there was.
 
2012-01-11 04:58:41 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Hasn't he started his own company and so on? So at least he's been trying to make his own way instead of coasting on his family.

I mean, "self-made" is kind of an approximation anyhow, it's not like anyone succeeds in a vacuum. If nothing else, you need other people to buy your stuff, and in most cases you're going to need investors making an initial monetary show of confidence, some sort of mentoring or education to show you how to not screw it completely, etc. The term generally just means that your choices are one of the major factors in your own success, not that there are no other factors.

//Hell, anyone that's been even marginally involved in the running of a business will tell you that simple luck is always a factor, too.


Well, he was incredibly lucky that his father was a governor and a CEO, and held a cabinet position in the Nixon Administration. Coming from an incredibly rich family with lots of business connections makes it a lot easier to get people to invest in your company. Romeny chose his family well.
 
2012-01-11 04:58:42 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: Let me explain it again: in his objective analysis, he acknowledges that viewed from the perspective that both the government and the court dicta are wrong, NDAA could be said to "expand" detention authority.

...which is an expansion. Solidifying assumed expansion of scope is not substantially different than directly expanding the scope when the argument is that the scope of acceptable prisoners is larger than described within the AUMF. Assuming the government/court dicta were the source of the expansion and the NDAA merely codifies it, that's still an expansion of explicit legislative authority. Keep in mind, we're talking about powers that per the WPA are restricted strongly to the Legislative branch; the executive and judicial cannot simply meddle with legislative definitions of scope of AUMF without legislative involvement. That's why codification is such a big deal.


Who cares about all this?

Obama obviously doesn't support the provision in the law you're talking about.

However, it was embedded within a crucial bill that needed to pass. It prevented a government shutdown. What should he have done? Vetoed it? It passed with a veto-proof majority.

Am I missing something here?
 
2012-01-11 04:59:46 PM  

bugontherug: You've made the argument for a different view of NDAA that he acknowledges but simply disagrees with.


You didn't actually read what you responded to, did you?
 
2012-01-11 05:03:23 PM  

hitchking: Obama obviously doesn't support the provision in the law you're talking about.


The only part of the NDAA Obama raised substantial objection to were the procedural farkups in the original language of the bill. If they find a guy running around firebombing churches, it's a state or federal case. If, after doing months of work and catching the guy they find out he's a member of AQ, he was suddenly supposed to be handed over to military jurisdiction with no explanation as to who does what. The wording was changed to prevent the military detainment and potential jurisdiction to interfere with other investigations, and Obama dropped his objection.

He also said he would choose not to put citizens under military detention.
 
2012-01-11 05:03:48 PM  

hitchking: sprawl15: bugontherug: Let me explain it again: in his objective analysis, he acknowledges that viewed from the perspective that both the government and the court dicta are wrong, NDAA could be said to "expand" detention authority.

...which is an expansion. Solidifying assumed expansion of scope is not substantially different than directly expanding the scope when the argument is that the scope of acceptable prisoners is larger than described within the AUMF. Assuming the government/court dicta were the source of the expansion and the NDAA merely codifies it, that's still an expansion of explicit legislative authority. Keep in mind, we're talking about powers that per the WPA are restricted strongly to the Legislative branch; the executive and judicial cannot simply meddle with legislative definitions of scope of AUMF without legislative involvement. That's why codification is such a big deal.

Who cares about all this?

Obama obviously doesn't support the provision in the law you're talking about.

However, it was embedded within a crucial bill that needed to pass. It prevented a government shutdown. What should he have done? Vetoed it? It passed with a veto-proof majority.

Am I missing something here?


He could have vetoed it, made a stink about it which would get lost in the stink of "not funding the troops!", and have his veto overridden going into an election year...
 
2012-01-11 05:05:27 PM  
funk_soul_bobby: Obama wasn't necessarily handed the keys to a Ferrari like some others but he didn't exactly come up from the the infantry in Viet Nam or the steel mills in Allentown to the Oval Office. He had plenty of help. Everybody catches breaks, and he's caught a few. Is that any reason to favor one's particular fortunes in life over another's, because they happened during their lifetime and not in their ancestors' lifetimes? I don't know, that's a matter of personal opinion.

What breaks did Obama catch?

I'm not suggesting he didn't have any. But it seems like you're drawing a bit of an equivalency between Obama's situation and, say, Romney's. I know you're not saying they're the same, but it does seem like you're muddying the waters so that they seem 'same-ish'.

So, what breaks are you referring to in Obama's case?
 
2012-01-11 05:09:03 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: You've made the argument for a different view of NDAA that he acknowledges but simply disagrees with.

You didn't actually read what you responded to, did you?


In fact I did, and accurately characterized what you said. He acknowledges that some people might make different assumptions about what it means to "expand" detention authority. You make the argument for why "codification" is really "expansion," and therefore a "big deal."

While he disagrees with you that "codification" and "expansion" mean the same thing, he does acknowledge the importance of NDAA's codification:

"The codification of detention authority in statute is a significant development, not because it enables anything that Congress had previously forbidden but because it puts the legislature squarely behind a set of policies on which it had always retained a kind of strategic ambiguity-a tolerance for detention without a clear endorsement of it of the sort that would make members accountable. Congress has now given that endorsement, and that is no small thing."

Again, as to your original claim that he "failed to address" the "substantive criticisms," you're just plain, demonstrably wrong. He very thoroughly addressed the substantive criticisms, made his case for why they're overblown, and acknowledges some kernels of legitimacy that underlie them.
 
2012-01-11 05:12:45 PM  

hitchking: funk_soul_bobby: Obama wasn't necessarily handed the keys to a Ferrari like some others but he didn't exactly come up from the the infantry in Viet Nam or the steel mills in Allentown to the Oval Office. He had plenty of help. Everybody catches breaks, and he's caught a few. Is that any reason to favor one's particular fortunes in life over another's, because they happened during their lifetime and not in their ancestors' lifetimes? I don't know, that's a matter of personal opinion.

What breaks did Obama catch?

I'm not suggesting he didn't have any. But it seems like you're drawing a bit of an equivalency between Obama's situation and, say, Romney's. I know you're not saying they're the same, but it does seem like you're muddying the waters so that they seem 'same-ish'.

So, what breaks are you referring to in Obama's case?


Obama's breaks: Jack Ryan bringing 7-of-9 to a sex club, Alan Keyes getting selected as the Illinois Republican Senate candidate, John McCain running a horrible campaign and picking Sarah Palin as his running mate

Romney's one and only measly, meaningless break: having a wealthy, politically connected father

/It's easy to see how the Fates have intervened to protect Obama.
//sarc
 
2012-01-11 05:13:05 PM  
Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.
 
2012-01-11 05:16:58 PM  

sprawl15: He used Padilla as a setup for the idea that the authority to detain Padilla only lay in his material involvement in combat overseas, then said BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW. Hamdi made no such distinction - nor does such a distinction exist - yet because of the lower court rulings in favor of such an idea, he determined that the government simply hasn't decided: "the question of citizen detention has remained unsettled ever since". Padilla has no grounds to 'unsettle' such a question in the first place, and were it 'unsettled' regardless of Padilla, detailing the case in the leading manner he did would be irrelevant. The entire point of including Padilla is to introduce mistrust in the reader to back up his earlier wavering.


His entire point is to offer full background information to help the naive reader. Hamdi dealt with a citizen captured on what we would conventionally call a "battlefield." Padilla dealt with a citizen captured at an airport inside the United States. Hamdi said detention of a US citizen caught on a conventional battlefield is okay. Padilla could have produced a different outcome than Hamdi because of differences in the fact patterns. And the question regarding citizen detention potentially raised by Padilla went unanswered by the Supreme Court.

And all of that is relevant to helping naive readers understand the nuances of the issue.
 
2012-01-11 05:17:57 PM  

RexTalionis: It isn't, as far as I know. However, I got the idea from the fact that high-end steakhouses often gild their steak with brushed-on butter to make it taste better. Never had the opportunity to put this idea into action, though, since the last time I cooked properly, I also set myself on fire.


Oh man. I HATE when that happens.
 
2012-01-11 05:19:54 PM  

bugontherug: In fact I did, and accurately characterized what you said.


He gave an opinion, then hypothesized about another opinion. In both cases, it is an expansion of government authority. I did not say which opinion I agreed with.

bugontherug: He very thoroughly addressed the substantive criticisms, made his case for why they're overblown, and acknowledges some kernels of legitimacy that underlie them.


Which is why the answer "Nope." is false. He says it doesn't expand it, except that it does and if you consider it a different way it does. "The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims." is put out prior to the hypothetical situation.
 
2012-01-11 05:23:46 PM  

RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.


The healthcare reform bill was rammed down Congress' throat by Obama. NDAA was overwhelmingly supported by Congress, but it's STILL Obama's fault for signing it.

/He's a floor wax AND a dessert topping.
//Party of personal responsibility?!
 
2012-01-11 05:25:12 PM  

bugontherug: Hamdi said detention of a US citizen caught on a conventional battlefield is okay.


Hamdi did not substantially make this distinction:
A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States," Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

The only real mention of the state of being on a conventional battlefield is to hammer home how 'duh' the point is of stating that he was substantially aiding enemy forces. It does not in any way even suggest that being engaged on a conventional battlefield is a restriction. Such a concept is only raised by contrasting to Padilla where such a restriction was a substantial part of the case. That's why it's disingenuous; it brings up contentions where none existed, then states that such contentions were never resolved as if the lack of a SCOTUS Padilla ruling somehow casts doubt on the Hamdi ruling.
 
2012-01-11 05:27:04 PM  

RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.


I would like to think that the people who voted for the Udall amendment would have banded together to support the veto (which would have been enough to sustain it), but I wouldn't actually put money on it. It's a shame how little we can trust Congress these days.
 
2012-01-11 05:30:54 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: In fact I did, and accurately characterized what you said.

He gave an opinion, then hypothesized about another opinion. In both cases, it is an expansion of government authority.


No, what you're doing is what laypeople call "quibbling over semantics." He acknowledges all the facts you claim, and simply disagrees with you over the question of whether "codification of authority already believed to exist by all constitutional actors constitutes an 'expansion' of government authority."

I did not say which opinion I agreed with.

Irrelevant.


Which is why the answer "Nope." is false


Well, it's a good thing that his "nope" answer included a caveat, and a thorough explanation of the complexities involved then. Is it your position that this answer would get him in trouble with a court for lack of candor?

And if it is not, then you agree that his answer was candid.
 
2012-01-11 05:33:54 PM  

sprawl15: RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.

I would like to think that the people who voted for the Udall amendment would have banded together to support the veto (which would have been enough to sustain it), but I wouldn't actually put money on it. It's a shame how little we can trust Congress these days.


Definitely not when "supporting the troops" is on the line.
 
2012-01-11 05:42:28 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: Hamdi said detention of a US citizen caught on a conventional battlefield is okay.

Hamdi did not substantially make this distinction:
A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States," Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.
The only real mention of the state of being on a conventional battlefield is to hammer home how 'duh' the point is of stating that he was substantially aiding enemy forces. It does not in any way even suggest that being engaged on a conventional battlefield is a restriction. Such a concept is only raised by contrasting to Padilla where such a restriction was a substantial part of the case.


Yes, counselor. But the core holding of a case does not extend beyond the contours set by its fact pattern. Everything a court says beyond that is mere dicta.

And a naive reader needs the factual background of both cases to understand that. It's not his fault if people read Hamdi too broadly. But it's admirable of him to explain what it really means.


That's why it's disingenuous; it brings up contentions where none existed, then states that such contentions were never resolved as if the lack of a SCOTUS Padilla ruling somehow casts doubt on the Hamdi ruling.


Hamdi did NOT resolve the question of whether a US citizen captured on US soil could be indefinitely detained. Hamdi dealt with a citizen captured on the battlefield. Padilla dealt with a citizen captured on US soil, not on a battlefield. The same Supreme Court that decided Hamdi would also have decided Padilla, so to say he's using Padilla to cast doubt on Hamdi is nuttery. He's not saying Padilla would have undermined or overturned Hamdi. He's saying Padilla raised a different question.
 
2012-01-11 05:44:36 PM  

bugontherug: No, what you're doing is what laypeople call "quibbling over semantics." He acknowledges all the facts you claim, and simply disagrees with you over the question of whether "codification of authority already believed to exist by all constitutional actors constitutes an 'expansion' of government authority."


You don't find expanding legislative authority regarding scope of war powers to be a substantial increase of general government authority? That's a mighty strange position to take, considering how far the government has gone to show that the legislative is the source of war power authority rather than the executive.

bugontherug: I did not say which opinion I agreed with.

Irrelevant.


It is when you keep shoving words in my mouth.

bugontherug: Well, it's a good thing that his "nope" answer included a caveat,


It doesn't. Go back and read.

bugontherug: Is it your position that this answer would get him in trouble with a court for lack of candor?


Absolutely. He first details how the expansion of codified scope is just legislation to enact assumed authorization - which would mean it's a legislative expansion of scope. Considering the constitutional separation of war powers, this is not a minor caveat, but a major factor to the weight of government authority. You seem to be confused as to the nature of his hypothetical expansion of scope in the second part of his argument, thinking that it's only a hypothetical expansion of power. The second part is only an extension of the first to an untried area (independent supporters) which can hypothetically be seen to be within assumed authority similar to content in the earlier part of the section.

This means that are we to take the hypothetical to be true, then it has the same problems as earlier: legislative impact concerning execution of war powers is not an insignificant quibble. Were we to take the hypothetical to be false, and assume prior documentation by circuit courts and the government to be more thought experiment than actual assumption of power, then it is a clear and blatant expansion of power.

Either way, saying that it doesn't expand government authority is a lie, unless one defines 'expanding government authority' to include anything the government does rather than just what they are currently allowed to do.
 
2012-01-11 05:49:41 PM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs. They are going to vote for Obama anyway. Its not like in 2008 when, legally, Republicans tried to vote for Hillary to mess up the process. This is just...butthurt.


This isn't butthurt. This is an intervention.

We see what Republicans are doing to themselves, and we're horrified.

/not voting for Obama again due to NDAA
//DEFINITELY not voting Republican
 
2012-01-11 05:50:33 PM  

bugontherug: Hamdi did NOT resolve the question of whether a US citizen captured on US soil could be indefinitely detained.


Incorrect. It absolutely resolved that question, and finds that such an act is innate to the war power. What it actually didn't resolve was the definition of 'enemy combatant'. It simply looked at being active in the Taliban as a clear example of what the enemy combatant category contains. If a citizen is, for example, part of an AQ cell that actively attacks a military installation on US soil, they would clearly be an enemy combatant; US soil is irrelevant. If a citizen instead knowingly supplies weapons for that attack, they are clearly a member of the terrorist group, but if they are a combatant proper for purposes of detainment is up in the air.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

bugontherug: He's saying Padilla raised a different question.


Which was never answered. Thus the irrelevance of the case.
 
2012-01-11 05:52:14 PM  

RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.


So how did his not vetoing it help matters at all, then?

If he vetoed it, at least he could have made a strong statement against the bill. By signing it and then saying "But we won't use that", he just comes off as duplicitous and short-sighted.
 
2012-01-11 05:54:26 PM  

HeartBurnKid: By signing it and then saying "But we won't use that", he just comes off as duplicitous and short-sighted.


Really, the problem with the whole thing is the wording of the AUMF. Giving sole executive authority to determine who is a valid target simply doesn't work in a war like this.
 
2012-01-11 05:56:09 PM  

HeartBurnKid: RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.

So how did his not vetoing it help matters at all, then?

If he vetoed it, at least he could have made a strong statement against the bill. By signing it and then saying "But we won't use that", he just comes off as duplicitous and short-sighted.


If he vetoed it and it is overridden by the pretty massive bipartisan support it passed in both houses, he looks (or, to be more precise, he IS) weak and it pretty much undermines his authority going forward. The President stands to lose a lot more than he stands to gain by vetoing.

Yes, a lot of it is based on perceptions. But that's how politics work.
 
2012-01-11 06:00:57 PM  

RexTalionis: HeartBurnKid: RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.

So how did his not vetoing it help matters at all, then?

If he vetoed it, at least he could have made a strong statement against the bill. By signing it and then saying "But we won't use that", he just comes off as duplicitous and short-sighted.

If he vetoed it and it is overridden by the pretty massive bipartisan support it passed in both houses, he looks (or, to be more precise, he IS) weak and it pretty much undermines his authority going forward. The President stands to lose a lot more than he stands to gain by vetoing.


Instead he looks like a duplicitous totalitarian asshole who broke a key campaign promise. Much better.
 
2012-01-11 06:02:05 PM  

I_C_Weener: I, honestly, can't fathom why liberals and Democrats care who runs.


Three words: for the lulz
 
2012-01-11 06:02:55 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: No, what you're doing is what laypeople call "quibbling over semantics." He acknowledges all the facts you claim, and simply disagrees with you over the question of whether "codification of authority already believed to exist by all constitutional actors constitutes an 'expansion' of government authority."

You don't find expanding legislative authority regarding scope of war powers to be a substantial increase of general government authority?


You don't find question begging argument to be begging the question?

That's a mighty strange position to take, considering how far the government has gone to show that the legislative is the source of war power authority rather than the executive.

So... the government has gone to great lengths to show that the legislature is the source of the war power... naturally, then, a legislative exercise of its previously shown legislative war power is obviously a massive expansion.

Gotcha. sprawl15:

It is when you keep shoving words in my mouth.

Good thing I did no such thing.

It doesn't. Go back and read.

Either way, saying that it doesn't expand government authority is a lie...


But I've already read and understood it. His answer contains a lengthy exposition complete with a caveat which you're calling an "admission" that contradicts his answer. He can't simultaneously be "admitting" an argument which undermines his claim, and and also be uncandid. The very caveat you're calling an "admission" shows the candor you deny exists.

And it's only a lie if he doesn't believe it to be true, AND it isn't objectively true. He both believes his statement to be true, and in a reasonable reading it IS true. It's simply a disagreement over whether codification of authority already believed to exist constitutes an "expansion." Reasonable minds can differ on that subject.
 
2012-01-11 06:07:34 PM  

sprawl15: Incorrect. It absolutely resolved that question, and finds that such an act is innate to the war power


Not legally possible. A case cannot resolve a question not in issue. Hamdi did not present the question of whether US citizens captured on US soil could be detained indefinitely, and therefore could not have resolved it. Any statement beyond what its facts present is mere dicta.

Or are you saying that judicial dicta CAN definitively resolve a legal question? If so, then court dicta before NDAA resolved the scope of detention authority, and NDAA could not therefore have "expanded" it.
 
2012-01-11 06:37:03 PM  

bugontherug: So... the government has gone to great lengths to show that the legislature is the source of the war power... naturally, then, a legislative exercise of its previously shown legislative war power is obviously a massive expansion.


You misspelled expansion. Legislation expanding its previously shown power is in fact expansion of legislative power. Also, you're using weasel words again by inserting 'massive' into the argument. If you want to make valid arguments, address something pertinent.

bugontherug: Good thing I did no such thing.


See above.

bugontherug: The very caveat you're calling an "admission" shows the candor you deny exists.


It's only a caveat insofar as there is an area where the government has supposed to have authority but has not directly claimed that authority. He looks at that area from both viewpoints. But considering that either viewpoint makes his earlier assertion to lack of expansion of power a lie, that's moot. Either it's an expansion of legislative power to a place the executive wanted or it's an expansion of legislative power to a place that the executive didn't really want. Since the question is not if the executive wants it, how does the 'caveat' have any bearing on anything?

bugontherug: It's simply a disagreement over whether codification of authority already believed to exist constitutes an "expansion."


This is not what his 'caveat' was about. It was merely to cover the base for independent supporters, who are in a technical grey area concerning what the government planned to do prior to legislative expansion. That caveat is immaterial since best case the independent supporters fall into the same boat as the rest and my point still stands regarding them. A point that you haven't even attempted to address (above strawmen aside).

bugontherug: Not legally possible. A case cannot resolve a question not in issue.


"Resolve the question" in the colloquial sense. That question was practically resolved long before Hamdi. "Does the SCOTUS issue their opinions in English?" would be another question that could be resolved by Hamdi, even if it is not 'Resolved by Hamdi'. C'mon, between strawmen and this, you've got to have more.
 
2012-01-11 06:43:40 PM  

hitchking: What breaks did Obama catch?

I'm not suggesting he didn't have any. But it seems like you're drawing a bit of an equivalency between Obama's situation and, say, Romney's. I know you're not saying they're the same, but it does seem like you're muddying the waters so that they seem 'same-ish'.

So, what breaks are you referring to in Obama's case?


I don't want to go into specifics, mostly because I'm not really trying to enter an Obama vs. Romney realm, as per my original comment. (I know, tangential thought, kind of an ADD thing.) My only observation is that when you are at the upper echelon, however you got there is where you are no matter what got you there. Romney's ancestors caught the breaks that let the family ascend to where they are. And in the future, it might be the case that my children look at Obama's girls and think, Well they're just entitled little Daddy's girls, in which event I will tell them the exact thing I'm saying now. My main point being that these are people at the top and the top is where everybody wants to be, so I can't begrudge however they got there (though there are obviously moral qualifiers involved as always), therefore I'm not really all that passionate about that particular issue.

To be fair to Romney and Obama alike, though, they have taken advantage of the opportunities they've had.
 
2012-01-11 06:59:53 PM  
Romney: Born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple to get there.
 
2012-01-11 07:00:53 PM  

NuttierThanEver: To paraphrase Molly Ivins she said something similar about Dubya that applies.
He was born on third base and grew up thinking he hit a triple.


Damn it! It's so true, though. That's the problem with Romney - no matter how hard he tries to paint himself as an everyman, it's readily apparent that he has even less clue than Dubya as to what that really means.
 
2012-01-11 07:33:17 PM  
LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made it part of his campaign rally.

WTF? Not in front of the kids?
Romney is a lot funnier than I thought he would be.
 
2012-01-11 09:13:14 PM  
"pink-slip politician" I like the ring of it
 
2012-01-11 09:52:33 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: hitchking: What breaks did Obama catch?

I'm not suggesting he didn't have any. But it seems like you're drawing a bit of an equivalency between Obama's situation and, say, Romney's. I know you're not saying they're the same, but it does seem like you're muddying the waters so that they seem 'same-ish'.

So, what breaks are you referring to in Obama's case?

I don't want to go into specifics, mostly because I'm not really trying to enter an Obama vs. Romney realm, as per my original comment.


But then the rest of your post is all about Obama and Romney. Is it possible you don't want to go into specifics because you'll feel a little silly drawing an equivalency between Romney being born into an extremely wealthy, well-connected family and Obama being born as a mixed-race child to a single mother?

I mean, the only way those two stories can seem at all similar is if you gloss over both of them with language like...

My only observation is that when you are at the upper echelon, however you got there is where you are no matter what got you there. Romney's ancestors caught the breaks that let the family ascend to where they are. And in the future, it might be the case that my children look at Obama's girls and think, Well they're just entitled little Daddy's girls, in which event I will tell them the exact thing I'm saying now. My main point being that these are people at the top and the top is where everybody wants to be, so I can't begrudge however they got there (though there are obviously moral qualifiers involved as always), therefore I'm not really all that passionate about that particular issue.

To be fair to Romney and Obama alike, though, they have taken advantage of the opportunities they've had.


This is so bizarre. Are you aware of the rhetorical subterfuge you're using? You start with "Romney's ancestors caught the breaks", which is the whole point- that Romney was born very privileged. Then you compare that to Obama's daughters. Of course Obama's daughters got a lot of breaks in life- they're the daughters of the President!

Then, you close the loop to somehow associate Obama with the 'entitled little Daddy's girls'.

That's the WHOLE POINT. Obama's daughters were born on third base. Mitt Romney was born on third base. Barack Obama was not.

Now, none of this matters in terms of evaluating their politics- FDR was born into an upper crust family and Richard Nixon was born into poverty. But why on earth do we have to pretend that there's any kind of equivalence between Romney and Obama's life stories? They both "have taken advantage of the breaks they've had"? Come on.
 
2012-01-11 10:26:42 PM  

sprawl15: bugontherug: So... the government has gone to great lengths to show that the legislature is the source of the war power... naturally, then, a legislative exercise of its previously shown legislative war power is obviously a massive expansion.

You misspelled expansion.


No I didn't. I can tell you're trolling now, but I'll play along for this post anyway.

Legislation expanding its previously shown power is in fact expansion of legislative power. Also, you're using weasel words again by inserting 'massive' into the argument. If you want to make valid arguments, address something pertinent.

My argument is the same with or without the word massive. Legislation in an area long known and believed to be within the legislative power is not an "expansion" of legislative power.


It's only a caveat insofar as there is an area where the government has supposed to have authority but has not directly claimed that authority. He looks at that area from both viewpoints. But considering that either viewpoint makes his earlier assertion to lack of expansion of power a lie, that's moot. Either it's an expansion of legislative power to a place the executive wanted or it's an expansion of legislative power to a place that the executive didn't really want. Since the question is not if the executive wants it, how does the 'caveat' have any bearing on anything?

In any event, you've managed to change the subject from whether NDAA expands detention authority, which it does not, to whether its an expansion of legislative power relative to executive power. Even if it's an expansion of legislative power relative to executive power, that's not necessarily an expansion of government power generally.

But it's moot, because neither civil libertarians nor the general public nor even any meaningful number of lawyers are the slightest bit concerned about your purported expansion of legislative power relative to executive power. You've moved the goal posts because I've thoroughly debunked your other claims. NDAA does not expand detention authority beyond any contours long acknowledged to exist. That's what the author says, and he says so in an ethical, forthright manner.

This is not what his 'caveat' was about. It was merely to cover the base for independent supporters, who are in a technical grey area concerning what the government planned to do prior to legislative expansion. That caveat is immaterial since best case the independent supporters fall into the same boat as the rest and my point still stands regarding them. A point that you haven't even attempted to address (above strawmen aside).


That's exactly what his caveat was about. It was about whether, when viewed from a highly theoretical perspective that defies long established, conventional understanding, NDAA could be said to "expand" detention authority.

"Resolve the question" in the colloquial sense. That question was practically resolved long before Hamdi. "Does the SCOTUS issue their opinions in English?" would be another question that could be resolved by Hamdi, even if it is not 'Resolved by Hamdi'. C'mon, between strawmen and this, you've got to have more

Nope. Hamdi did not resolve the question presented in Padilla. Neither colloquially nor legally nor in any other sense of the word. That Padilla raised a different question than Hamdi is the main reason legal scholars or anyone else gives the slightest sh*t about it.
 
2012-01-11 10:52:40 PM  

hitchking: Obama's daughters were born on third base


Guess Illinois senators are absolute titans of the world, huh?
Because that's where he was when the kids were coming into the world.
Before that, law school professor who organized to get African-Americans registered to vote.
Before that, well, not quite single mother. Stanley Ann remarried, but the guy she picked? As we'd say, he was a real lolo..

/okay, about three of you got that joke
//although to be fair, Little Mittens looked up to see the boss of Nash-Kelvinator/AMC changing his three cornered pants, and look how well that company is doing after Poppa Romney told Detroit to stop making land-boats
///no wait, shiat...
 
2012-01-12 01:12:42 AM  

RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.


If Obama can't prevent the senate, in which his __own party__ has a majority from passing a bill that he fervently disagrees with, he must be a pretty ineffective leader. The only alternate explanation is that he wasn't in disagreement, because he relishes having the authority to throw people into military prison without trial.
 
2012-01-12 08:01:25 AM  
I work in a company that has fallen victim to people like Romney. They came in bought up everything.... merged and put hundreds of people out of work. They bought more and more. Now that things have gone south, they are in trouble. Alls they do is fire people to cut costs. Now there talk that the few jobs left might all be shipped off to India...

It may be capitalism in some minds, but to me companies that export jobs oin hard economic times for your own country, when many people are out of work (many you put there yourself)....its no capitalism, its just being a traitor.

BTW all these job creator, capitalist rewarded themselves with $500,000 bonus, while the rest of us get nothing... for over 5 years now. Its poison. Calling it capitalism and the rest of us socialists or something other, is just dirty smoke screen.
 
2012-01-12 08:32:19 AM  

hitchking: This is so bizarre.


That's pretty much me. Like I said, not that passionate about it. Just like to observe and evaluate things.
 
2012-01-12 09:21:12 AM  

bugontherug: My argument is the same with or without the word massive


This is exactly why I'm calling you disingenuous. The government expanding its authority any amount is a very different argument than expanding it a 'massive' amount. An expansion only in the hypothetical area of independent supporters would in no way be a 'massive' expansion, yet it would still be an expansion. You're making shiat up because you can't materially support your arguments.

bugontherug: In any event, you've managed to change the subject from whether NDAA expands detention authority, which it does not, to whether its an expansion of legislative power relative to executive power.


When talking about war powers, legislative power absolutely is to be held on a higher tier than executive power. The Constitution - and WPA - are very clear about that. You have read the WPA, right? Even if we assume that you're right for the sake of argument and unilateral executive decision is to be considered equal to legislation, it's still an expansion of what the law actually is. The scope has been widened.

bugontherug: You've moved the goal posts because I've thoroughly debunked your other claims.


You've done no such thing, you've just babbled about a hypothetical that you completely misunderstood as if it were relevant. You don't even understand the blog you're citing, but you're positive that it debunks whatever I'm saying.

bugontherug: It was about whether, when viewed from a highly theoretical perspective that defies long established, conventional understanding, NDAA could be said to "expand" detention authority.


Wrong. And, again, even if we assume you're right, you're still wrong because: That caveat is immaterial since best case the independent supporters fall into the same boat as the rest and my point still stands regarding them. A point that you haven't even attempted to address (above strawmen aside).

bugontherug: Hamdi did not resolve the question presented in Padilla.


The fark are you babbling about? You do know why we're talking about the phrase 'resolve the question', right? It has nothing to do with Padilla. If you can't keep up a couple different lines of argument at once, just say so and we can focus on one thing.

bugontherug: I can tell you're trolling now


The last refuge of the idiotic. You being unable to understand what the fark you're talking about is not me trolling. I've been very clear where I'm coming from, and you've still resorted to strawmen, insults, putting words in my mouth, and randomly changing the subject. Your childish method of arguing isn't my fault, asshole. I mean, fark, this entire argument is because you misunderstood my (sarcastic) question about what Obama has meaningfully done to prevent the passing of the bill and went off on a LOL I HAV AN INTERNET rant. Yet again, even if you were completely right, you would still be wrong since none of any of what you're talking about has to do with Obama. You're getting to be fractally wrong at this point.
 
2012-01-12 10:02:48 AM  

RexTalionis: ... since the last time I cooked properly, I also set myself on fire.


I'm certainly no expert on cooking, but I'm pretty sure that setting yourself on fire is directly opposite from "cooked properly" .
 
2012-01-12 02:26:04 PM  

justaguy516: RexTalionis: Has anyone noted that it wouldn't matter whether Obama vetoed the NDAA or not? It passed the Senate 93-7, it passed the house by 322-96. It was veto-proof already.

If Obama vetoed the bill, all that would've happened would have been that on the next day, the House and Senate would override his veto.

If Obama can't prevent the senate, in which his __own party__ has a majority from passing a bill that he fervently disagrees with, he must be a pretty ineffective leader. The only alternate explanation is that he wasn't in disagreement, because he relishes having the authority to throw people into military prison without trial.


These truly are the *only two possible explanations*. Entertaining anything deeper than "Obama is a Masochist or an Idiot." is just plain foolishness. It couldn't possibly be any more complicated than that...

Dizzying_Intellect.jpg
 
Displayed 186 of 186 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report