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.

(Talking Points Memo)   ♫In the middle of the night, Rand Paul filibustered in his sleep. From the podium of faith, to the rivers so derp, He must've been looking for something. Something sacred we lost. Till the drones came to him. In...the middle of the night♫   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 291
    More: Followup, GOP, deaths, human beings, Majority Leader Harry Reid, senate majority whip, D-IL, Strom Thurmond, American soil  
•       •       •

1495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 09:26:21 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: I like how republicans get a pass on this shiat by other republicans because they are always against civil liberties, but the dirty libs are supposed to protect our civil liberties so this is egregious. You're attacking one side when clearly they are all at fault. I say they are all at fault and I am "slobbering the knob." THis is why nobody takes you seriously. You're a hack.

bbbbbbbut Bush?  Christ man, take your party to task when they deserve it.


That's pretty farking hypocritical right there.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:07 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Its all partisan bullshiat buddy. Congress is who put that lovely little clause about US citizens being possibly subject to martial law in the 2012 NDAA. Obama signed it. He said he didn't like it. If congress hates it so much, why is it in there, and why don't they take it out now that they realize how unpopular it is? I doubt Obama would veto that. Do you?

What a farking tyrant.

The fact that Obama's administration won't come out and explicitly state how they use those clauses doesn't trouble you?  The fact that the administration (supposedly pro civil liberties) has not brought those clauses to the forefront of the political scene and asked congress to repeal them doesn't trouble you?  The fact that they have simply ignored this filibuster, when one would expect, if they truly disagreed with those provisions, they would #stoodwithrood?

Yeah, just keep slobbing that knob and telling yourself that he's different.


I think Obama went on record right and the beginning saying that his administration would not use the clauses but that he could not say how future administrations would use them.  He should have vetoed it anyways and made Congress override his veto.  Also he should not have extended the Patriot Act or kept GITMO open.  These items combined represent the biggest failure of his administration IMHO.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:21 AM

MattStafford: That is factually incorrect. The expanded AUMF includes anyone providing support to terrorist organizations, whereas the original AUMF only went after the actors directly responsible for 9/11.


The original AUMF was broad enough that the argument could already have been made for that expansion. Did the current define it, obviously but don't delude yourself into thinking that the original couldn't have already been stood on to authorize that.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:25 AM

WTF Indeed: Obama hasn't ruled out carpet bombing trailer parks. Someone should filibuster until we get a straight answer on that.


Let's not be rash here... There may be some merit to that idea. : )
 
2013-03-07 09:27:41 AM

SlothB77: Did he go that whole time without peeing, did he pee his pants or just hold it?


If he wants to pull a stunt like that again, maybe he should get his father to install a catheter with a bag inside his pant leg.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:42 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: I like how republicans get a pass on this shiat by other republicans because they are always against civil liberties, but the dirty libs are supposed to protect our civil liberties so this is egregious. You're attacking one side when clearly they are all at fault. I say they are all at fault and I am "slobbering the knob." THis is why nobody takes you seriously. You're a hack.

bbbbbbbut Bush?  Christ man, take your party to task when they deserve it.


Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.
 
2013-03-07 09:28:08 AM

EyeballKid: NEWSFLASH: Judging people by what they do is often more accurate than judging people by what they say, even if they say it for twelve hours.


So is it fair to judge Obama for not speaking up about these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to repeal these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not explicitly stating how he can use these powers?  Is it fair to judge Obama to not agree with Rand Paul during his filibuster?

Can we judge Obama for these actions?  Or is that different?
 
2013-03-07 09:28:32 AM

GAT_00: WTF, I got called out in a thread I wasn't even in. And for all things, being too loyal to Obama and not criticizing him, which makes absolutely no sense.


Yeah, I know. I wasn't expecting it either. You got the GAT signal though
 
2013-03-07 09:29:04 AM

somedude210: Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.


Shhhhh don't let reality get in the way of his derp, this troll is actually fun to poke
 
2013-03-07 09:29:37 AM

MattStafford: EyeballKid: NEWSFLASH: Judging people by what they do is often more accurate than judging people by what they say, even if they say it for twelve hours.

So is it fair to judge Obama for not speaking up about these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to repeal these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not explicitly stating how he can use these powers?  Is it fair to judge Obama to not agree with Rand Paul during his filibuster?

Can we judge Obama for these actions?  Or is that different?


Obama also did not breathe fire from atop a mountain. Is it fair to assume Obama is anti-dragon?
 
2013-03-07 09:30:35 AM

somedude210: GAT_00: WTF, I got called out in a thread I wasn't even in. And for all things, being too loyal to Obama and not criticizing him, which makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't expecting it either. You got the GAT signal though


Haha.  I wonder if there's a setting so you can get emails for threads where you get referenced when you haven't commented in them.

But as long as victory is still mine, it's all good.
 
2013-03-07 09:30:38 AM

BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target


Haha! Obama is wrong on drone strikes and therefore Sarah Palin is automatically president and Obamacare is overturned.
 
2013-03-07 09:31:29 AM

somedude210: is he not agreeing with Rand when he says he has no intention of doing such things? and what more attention is needed when every goddamn news place in the country was talking about it? You want us to put up the Bat Signal? And he did ask Congress to remove, he did many times, he threatened to veto it, they threatened to drag him through the ringer with the "OMG HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS", he could've line-itemed veto and contemplated it but then they would've impeached him in a goddamn election year. You really want to re-elect a president facing impeachment? No? Well why would you risk your re-election and entire presidency because you can't do something the previous guy could do with ease because you're gonna get farking impeached?


First off - no, he is absolutely not agreeing with Rand when he says he has no intention of doing these things.  Rand is saying that he shouldn't even be allowed to do these things, whereas Obama is saying he won't (trust me!) do these things.

Second - having the president make a statement on the issue brings a lot more attention than a junior Senator from Kentucky.  And he should make the statement to show that he agrees with Rand!  That is the important farking part!

Please, show me where he has asked congress to remove those provisions.  I'd like a source please.

And again, I don't give a fark.  He should have taken a stand then, or he should have made a big farking deal about it after.  He did neither.
 
2013-03-07 09:31:53 AM

GAT_00: But as long as victory is still mine, it's all good.


It's a great day in the morning, people

/fetching all the muffins and bagels in all the land
//want your keg of glory now or later?
 
2013-03-07 09:31:54 AM
Infernalist:
....
Had you decided to be the sane party of opposition, .... and now no one takes you seriously other than some old scared white people.

You've done this to yourselves.


This is what I was thinking when Rand Paul was speaking.

/Republican
 
2013-03-07 09:32:52 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: MattStafford: qorkfiend: What are you on about? The 2012 NDAA, passed with a veto-proof majority by both Houses of Congress, which expanded nothing about the original AUMF? Yeah, that's definitely all Obama's fault.

He could have vetoed it. He could have brought a ton more attention to it. He could have asked Congress to remove those provisions. He could have agreed with Rand on these issues. He could explicitly state what he believes those provisions give him power to do.

The fact that he has done none of those things, are indeed, his fault.

No, he couldn't do that politically. That was never a realistic option because Congress the provision was directly linked to military funding. You veto the bill and you defund the troops, during an election year. Though this has been told to you a thousand times anyway so why am I bothering... Hell, the administration even asked to remove the provision BEFORE the House and Senate passed the flipping thing and they passed it anyway. Would I like to have seen more done by the administration besides a signing statement pink swearing they will be good? Most certainly. But up until the GOP decided to make this a scandal they were dead silent on the matter as well.

The one with blinders refusing to see reality is you. No one should be happy about any administration having the power to send a drone to anyone on the world on a whim, in that Rand is correct. But that's where it ends. Congress gets the lion share of the blame for me because they wrote it into the funding bill AGAINST the wishes of the admin to begin with. Its not like some super secret cabal of representative snuck it in there.


Well - that was one sentence of that paragraph, so I'm sure Obama is free and clear from blame.
 
2013-03-07 09:33:12 AM

Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up




That's the way I heard Holder describe a possible in-country use of drones as well; there was a valid and immediate threat to the country, and no other solution was available. Suppose some group commandeered a number of transport planes and began flying them into buildings again (not passenger planes, think UPS planes). Do you not think the President is perfectly justified in using whatever asset he has (drones, planes, whatever) to stop those planes from reaching their targets whether there were Americans flying them or not?

Bush was willing to shoot down airliners full of Americans to stop them from hitting 9/11 targets. I don't see this as anything but further clarification of that decision.
 
2013-03-07 09:33:34 AM

CPennypacker: That's pretty farking hypocritical right there.


I'm sorry, are there a ton of left libertarians in office?  The people I support don't do this kind of shiat.
 
2013-03-07 09:34:04 AM

somedude210: want your keg of glory now or later?


That's for tomorrow evening.
 
2013-03-07 09:34:11 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: The original AUMF was broad enough that the argument could already have been made for that expansion. Did the current define it, obviously but don't delude yourself into thinking that the original couldn't have already been stood on to authorize that.


Then why change it?
 
2013-03-07 09:34:45 AM

MattStafford: First off - no, he is absolutely not agreeing with Rand when he says he has no intention of doing these things. Rand is saying that he shouldn't even be allowed to do these things, whereas Obama is saying he won't (trust me!) do these things.

Second - having the president make a statement on the issue brings a lot more attention than a junior Senator from Kentucky. And he should make the statement to show that he agrees with Rand! That is the important farking part!

Please, show me where he has asked congress to remove those provisions. I'd like a source please.

And again, I don't give a fark. He should have taken a stand then, or he should have made a big farking deal about it after. He did neither.


you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source
 
2013-03-07 09:35:18 AM

qorkfiend: What are you on about? The 2012 NDAA, passed with a veto-proof majority by both Houses of Congress, which expanded nothing about the original AUMF? Yeah, that's definitely all Obama's fault.


If only the President had a coconut...
 
2013-03-07 09:36:25 AM

somedude210: Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.


Yeah, Congress shouldn't have passed it either!  The reason I'm not bringing up the GOP is because it is a farking echo chamber in here.  Everyone already knows the GOP is a terrible, awful party.  The question is, why are all these seemingly intelligent people giving Obama a pass on this whole matter?

The GOP forced Obama's hand, and they wrote the shiatty law.  Obama has done nothing to combat it.  He deserves blame, which you refuse to assign to him, presumably because he is on your team.
 
2013-03-07 09:36:59 AM

GAT_00: somedude210: want your keg of glory now or later?

That's for tomorrow evening.


noted. Btw, Toby's in your office

/when did I become Donna?
 
2013-03-07 09:37:23 AM

MattStafford: EyeballKid: NEWSFLASH: Judging people by what they do is often more accurate than judging people by what they say, even if they say it for twelve hours.

So is it fair to judge Obama for not speaking up about these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to repeal these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not explicitly stating how he can use these powers?  Is it fair to judge Obama to not agree with Rand Paul during his filibuster?

Can we judge Obama for these actions?  Or is that different?


1)  Obama did speak up against them, many times before they were passed.  He asked the House to remove them from the funding bill.  He threatened to Veto the funding bill if they didn't several times.  They passed it anyway as a tactic to attempt to get him to line-item the thing and start a shiat storm over the legality of the move.
2)  Its just as fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to remove them as it is to judge the now super concerned Congress for not making moves to remove it on their own.  If its such an issue why did they wait until it was politically expedient to do so?
3)  ?  What do you want him to say aside from what the administration has already stated many times on public record past and present?

The only reason we are here is because it was put in a funding bill as a political mouse trap.  Well, it didn't work, but now both sides have to live with this unsightly bit of policy floating around.  No one did anything before about it because it wasn't politically expedient to do so in a highly charged election year fraught with danger; especially when there was little to no perceived gain from making such a move.

But guess what?  All of a sudden public perception has tweaked up so there is finally some political hay to be made. 
We got in this situation due to party gamesmanship and thats also the only reason why its an issue once more.  The idea that Rand got up out of some idealistic belief is a bloody great farce.
 
2013-03-07 09:37:24 AM

EyeballKid: Obama also did not breathe fire from atop a mountain. Is it fair to assume Obama is anti-dragon?


Nice answer.
 
2013-03-07 09:38:44 AM

somedude210: you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source


That was while the bill was still in congress.  What about after?  After the bill was passed, what actions has Obama taken to remove or clarify those provisions?
 
2013-03-07 09:39:29 AM

MattStafford: The question is, why are all these seemingly intelligent people giving Obama a pass on this whole matter?


what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate
 
2013-03-07 09:39:34 AM
DroneMasters,  My conscience has finally caught up with me.  Drone me!  Drone me!!
Goodbye World!
Jane Fonda
 
2013-03-07 09:40:55 AM

MattStafford: WTF Indeed: What this filibuster was really about was Rand Paul's protection of militia groups that make up a lot of his voting block.

Wtf indeed.


No, he's (at least partially) correct.  A lot of the local wannabe separatists and white power types are absolutely terrified of the whole notion of drones- whether armed or unarmed surveillance- and we have a lot of them around here.  And a fair majority of them are pseudo-libertarian Paul supporters.

Rand is, like his old man, a Fed-buster.  He's actually not too bad on civil liberties as a result, as long as you squint your eyes a little and only bother to look at the national level.  But don't think for a minute that he isn't also indulging in some choir-preaching with the high visibility of this little performance; a lot of his base is still furious with him over his yea vote on Hagel's confirmation, and he still has a fair amount of ass to cover.  His live filibuster will go a long way towards that.
 
2013-03-07 09:41:30 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.

Yeah, Congress shouldn't have passed it either!  The reason I'm not bringing up the GOP is because it is a farking echo chamber in here.  Everyone already knows the GOP is a terrible, awful party.  The question is, why are all these seemingly intelligent people giving Obama a pass on this whole matter?

The GOP forced Obama's hand, and they wrote the shiatty law.  Obama has done nothing to combat it.  He deserves blame, which you refuse to assign to him, presumably because he is on your team.


Umm, no.  In every post of mine I have stated I would like him to have done more.  Every other person has said the same thing.  The only person not seeing reality (or reading the entirety of people's posts apparently) is you since you keep insisting its all Obama's fault, which is just ridiculous on its face given how bills are created and passed.
 
2013-03-07 09:42:58 AM

somedude210: what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate


He could bring it up regularly to the American people and say "Hey - Congress passed a law that does X, Y, and Z.  I'm asking them to repeal it, but they are refusing.  I just wanted you to know".  Things like that.  Or he could say - "Hey - these provisions allow the president to kill a US Citizen on American soil under these, explicit conditions.  This is something we need to have a national conversation about".  He's the farking president, don't act like he has no power to bring this topic up and get some action done on it.

The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.
 
2013-03-07 09:43:03 AM

Bendal: Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up

That's the way I heard Holder describe a possible in-country use of drones as well; there was a valid and immediate threat to the country, and no other solution was available. Suppose some group commandeered a number of transport planes and began flying them into buildings again (not passenger planes, think UPS planes). Do you not think the President is perfectly justified in using whatever asset he has (drones, planes, whatever) to stop those planes from reaching their targets whether there were Americans flying them or not?

Bush was willing to shoot down airliners full of Americans to stop them from hitting 9/11 targets. I don't see this as anything but further clarification of that decision.


If the administration was going to limit the use of drones or military strikes to attacks already in progress I don't think many people would have a problem. If that is the case they should just have just come out and said that instead of leaving open the possibility for authorizing strikes on potential terrorists a few weeks before the attack takes place.
 
2013-03-07 09:44:30 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: That's pretty farking hypocritical right there.

I'm sorry, are there a ton of left libertarians in office?  The people I support don't do this kind of shiat.


There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.
 
2013-03-07 09:45:00 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Umm, no. In every post of mine I have stated I would like him to have done more. Every other person has said the same thing. The only person not seeing reality (or reading the entirety of people's posts apparently) is you since you keep insisting its all Obama's fault, which is just ridiculous on its face given how bills are created and passed.


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Bush did the same thing, you wouldn't be saying "I would have liked to see him do more" and call that enough criticism.

He needs a strong rebuke on this, and he needs it from his party.  Saying you would have liked to see him do more is barely even criticism.
 
2013-03-07 09:47:14 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate

He could bring it up regularly to the American people and say "Hey - Congress passed a law that does X, Y, and Z.  I'm asking them to repeal it, but they are refusing.  I just wanted you to know".  Things like that.  Or he could say - "Hey - these provisions allow the president to kill a US Citizen on American soil under these, explicit conditions.  This is something we need to have a national conversation about".  He's the farking president, don't act like he has no power to bring this topic up and get some action done on it.

The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.


Have yo ubeen living under a rock for the last four years?
 
2013-03-07 09:47:15 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate

He could bring it up regularly to the American people and say "Hey - Congress passed a law that does X, Y, and Z.  I'm asking them to repeal it, but they are refusing.  I just wanted you to know".  Things like that.  Or he could say - "Hey - these provisions allow the president to kill a US Citizen on American soil under these, explicit conditions.  This is something we need to have a national conversation about".  He's the farking president, don't act like he has no power to bring this topic up and get some action done on it.

The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.


Absence of activity does not denote a refusal.  Refusing to act is getting up, and saying "I will not accept any limitations to my current power."

Aside from wrong use of language, I can partially agree with you: I think Obama should have attempted more of a national conversation about the matter.

Of course, I would put this question to you: if the matter is of such dire import, why is it dependent upon the president to push congress to make the change?  If they truly cared about the matter, why have they not taken the lead on the matter themselves?
 
2013-03-07 09:48:30 AM

CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.


Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.
 
2013-03-07 09:49:08 AM

CPennypacker: The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.

Have yo ubeen living under a rock for the last four years?


Go on?
 
2013-03-07 09:51:55 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.

Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.


The only person saying Obama is innocent in all of this is the straw man you are arguing against. If you don't want to look like such a shill, don't ignore all of the Republican fark ups and then come into a thread where both parties colluded to do something terribad and try to blame one of them. Seems fair to me.
 
2013-03-07 09:52:38 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Aside from wrong use of language, I can partially agree with you: I think Obama should have attempted more of a national conversation about the matter.

Of course, I would put this question to you: if the matter is of such dire import, why is it dependent upon the president to push congress to make the change? If they truly cared about the matter, why have they not taken the lead on the matter themselves?


Because Congress is a bunch of farkwits with a few exceptions.  And here we have Rand Paul standing up trying to make this a national conversation, and a good deal of the Fark collective simply derides him and assigns ulterior motives to his actions.

The left elected Obama to change things.  He is not changing things, and many of the left refuse to see this and still support the president blindly.  Which bothers me to no end.  We all understand that Republicans are idiots and have no desire to create actual change, but for some reason the left can't see that that applies to the Democrats as well.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:28 AM

GAT_00: Haha. I wonder if there's a setting so you can get emails for threads where you get referenced when you haven't commented in them.

But as long as victory is still mine, it's all good.


GAT, as much as you and I disagree on most things, you're one of the few liberals that have been vocally against the administration on this issue.  I have called you out on it in other threads.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:54 AM

MattStafford: Wicked Chinchilla: Umm, no. In every post of mine I have stated I would like him to have done more. Every other person has said the same thing. The only person not seeing reality (or reading the entirety of people's posts apparently) is you since you keep insisting its all Obama's fault, which is just ridiculous on its face given how bills are created and passed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Bush did the same thing, you wouldn't be saying "I would have liked to see him do more" and call that enough criticism.

He needs a strong rebuke on this, and he needs it from his party.  Saying you would have liked to see him do more is barely even criticism.


Actually no.  I would biatch like hell about the previous administration doing this, but I wouldn't have expected anything different out of that administration.  It IS the one who passed the original with zero protestations as well as the Patriot Act after all.  Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but even a simple "well, we don't like it so we swear we won't use it" is miles ahead of the previous administrations active efforts to expand executive power.

That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible.  There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress.  But that's not our political reality.  The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed.  They held it for two weeks.  Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight.  Should he have done more?  Absolutely.  Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done?  Nope.  Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts?  Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more."  I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:55 AM

CPennypacker: The only person saying Obama is innocent in all of this is the straw man you are arguing against. If you don't want to look like such a shill, don't ignore all of the Republican fark ups and then come into a thread where both parties colluded to do something terribad and try to blame one of them. Seems fair to me.


It certainly seems like a lot of people are refusing to assign him blame in this thread.  I've counted multiple posters stating "this is congress' fault" or "what else could Obama do".
 
2013-03-07 09:55:29 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.

Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.


Well, I sent him an email a few months ago over the whole 'drone' thing.

I still voted for him in November, however.

We can disagree with some of the President's decisions and still vastly prefer him over anything the GOP has to offer.  Hell, at this point, I'd prefer a half a glass of rancid milk to anything the GOP has to offer.
 
2013-03-07 09:56:09 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.

Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.


so you're an opportunist troll? Fascinating. Riddle me this, why would a president, who is hated soooo much by the goddamn opposing party that anything he advocates gets the party to support the exact opposite, would think that him going out of his way to say "look, I don't want to use drones. No president should use them" won't result in the party that controls congress to immediately sponsor a bill saying that all presidents should have the ability to use drones?
 
2013-03-07 09:58:14 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible. There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress. But that's not our political reality. The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed. They held it for two weeks. Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done? Nope. Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts? Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more." I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.


Standing up and saying to the nation "Congress just authorized me to use these powers, and this is explicitly what I am allowed to do with these powers.  I entirely disagree with this, and would like to see Congress repeal these provisions.  Please contact your congress critters and have them repeal these provisions" would be too difficult?

The fact of the matter is this:  Rand Paul, a junior Senator from Kentucky, has just made these serious issues part of the national conversation.  Are you suggesting that Obama, the President of the United States, could not have done the very same thing at some point during the last year, to an even greater extent?
 
2013-03-07 09:59:22 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Actually no. I would biatch like hell about the previous administration doing this, but I wouldn't have expected anything different out of that administration. It IS the one who passed the original with zero protestations as well as the Patriot Act after all. Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but even a simple "well, we don't like it so we swear we won't use it" is miles ahead of the previous administrations active efforts to expand executive power.

That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible. There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress. But that's not our political reality. The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed. They held it for two weeks. Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done? Nope. Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts? Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more." I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.


Exactly, but I doubt he'll see it like that. Good job trying though. Suggestions for what I should farky MattStafford with?
 
2013-03-07 09:59:52 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: As pointed out earlier, the executive branch has a great deal of power when authorizing the use of military force. You have a problem with that, have congress restrict them. You have a problem with anything the president does, then you have Congress write a law and pass it that forbids the president from doing such things

Is it too much to also want Obama to say something like "I agree, these powers are too much, and we need to have a national conversation about them, and craft a bill explicitly explaining where and when they can be used."?  Or was it too much to have Obama veto the bill in the first place?  Or do you just prefer him passing the bill and then staying silent on the issue.


How could President Obama veto a bill signed by Bush II?
 
2013-03-07 10:00:44 AM

somedude210: Riddle me this, why would a president, who is hated soooo much by the goddamn opposing party that anything he advocates gets the party to support the exact opposite, would think that him going out of his way to say "look, I don't want to use drones. No president should use them" won't result in the party that controls congress to immediately sponsor a bill saying that all presidents should have the ability to use drones?


Obama shouldn't stand up for what he believes in, or what the people who elected him believe in, because Republicans.  I mean, he would totally do all of these great things we want him to do, but the Republicans currently control the House of Representatives (not the Senate, just the House).  The fact that Republicans control half of the legislative branch completely neutralizes Obama, and we should not blame him for standing down or ignoring all of these issues, because Republicans in the House.
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report