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  
•       •       •

1497 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 10:01:49 AM

dartben: How could President Obama veto a bill signed by Bush II?


The AUMF was renewed last year with expanded powers.  He could have vetoed it, but it would have also vetoed funding for the troops.
 
2013-03-07 10:02:21 AM

MattStafford: 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?


greater extent? You're talking about a man who can't take a shiat without Republicans calling for his impeachment. He starts going on about this and suddenly he'll be "weak on terror, weak on defense, weak on AMERICA"

Between this and the economic threads we've had, you seem like you have the ability to be a very smart man, but you lack any cognitive ability to understand reality and how things actually work in this world.
 
2013-03-07 10:04:03 AM

MattStafford: Obama shouldn't stand up for what he believes in, or what the people who elected him believe in, because Republicans.


Obama has and continues to do so. Hell, he's asking for entitlement cuts, which goes against his own party but the people want, the republicans want, and gosh darn it, the republicans still hate him for not giving in 100% of the time.
 
2013-03-07 10:04:41 AM

MattStafford: The AUMF was renewed last year with expanded powers. He could have vetoed it, but it would have also vetoed funding for the troops.


so you admit to this now? You gotta keep your stories straight, you're tripping over your own storylines
 
2013-03-07 10:08:07 AM
How can a president that is facing heavy congressional opposition to anything he does start a national conversation? By demonstrating what congress gave him and watching them fall over themselves to change it. He started a national dialogue.

Why didn't he veto a bill passed with a poison pill and a veto proof majority? You're complaining that the president is doing something clearly within the powers of the executive as granted by the executive instead of preventing it with methods that are clearly outside the executive branch?

Every time a swat team sniper kills someone it is a denial of that person's due process. This whole thing is about granting to the CIA a technological upgrade that is with similar restrictions to those it already had with snipers.

There are a lot of things to get upset about here, but placing this on Obama is quite idiotic unless you also take republicans to task for setting this ball in motion.
 
2013-03-07 10:08:21 AM
It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.
 
2013-03-07 10:08:48 AM

MattStafford: 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.


He wasn't about to veto a Defense spending bill a few months before the general election, no matter how much the GOP wanted him to.  He's not a retard.

Further, his supporters aren't retards, either.  They understood then, and understand now, what that gambit was all about.  Making him look weak and anti-military right before a general election.  Duh.

And now, the GOP is taking him to task for a bill that they passed from the House.  One would think that if they were all that irate about drone strikes on American citizens, they'd pass a bill from the House doing something about it.  But they won't, because they think that they can tax the President even more by leaving it alone and harassing him on it from the House floor.

It's a political game, and if you look at the polls(the scoreboard), the GOP is losing badly.  All their nonsense, rage and fury over these things, has generated zero animosity among the masses.  Because, at the end of the day, most Americans trust this President to do the right thing.  You can look that up, by the way.  It's one of the polling features that they used in the pre-election polling.

So, all their 'ooga-booga be scared!' nonsense is falling on deaf ears, aside from a few scared white people who want reassurances that they can hold their anti-government meetings at Jed's cabin without fear of being drone-striked for being anti-government.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-03-07 10:09:16 AM

MattStafford: 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.


It really sounds to me like you don't understand the idea of political capital, or that you think this is the only issue on his plate, so why isn't he devoting his time to it?

Look, I get the issue is important to you, and I also find myself concerned about the potential use of drones. If, however, you are suggesting the President must step up and answer his critics on every single possible (even if less than plausible) issue that is brought up, the person in that office would soon spend all of his or her time dealing with trolls instead of focusing on the things that actually might have a chance in getting passed. Standing up to rail against the gerrymandered majority in the House is about all he's got left on many issues, but if he does that and nothing but that, many things that he does have control over would be ignored and then the right would be decrying how all he does is photo ops and reads from his teleprompters no matter what the issues or concerns actually are.

Wait, that's kinda like now. Nevermind.
 
2013-03-07 10:09:31 AM

MattStafford: 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?


So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?
 
2013-03-07 10:10:54 AM

Fista-Phobia: It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.


And coconuts.
 
2013-03-07 10:11:20 AM

Discordulator: How can a president that is facing heavy congressional opposition to anything he does start a national conversation? By demonstrating what congress gave him and watching them fall over themselves to change it. He started a national dialogue.

Why didn't he veto a bill passed with a poison pill and a veto proof majority? You're complaining that the president is doing something clearly within the powers of the executive as granted by the executive instead of preventing it with methods that are clearly outside the executive branch?

Every time a swat team sniper kills someone it is a denial of that person's due process. This whole thing is about granting to the CIA a technological upgrade that is with similar restrictions to those it already had with snipers.



SWAT teams and snipers are used when a crime has already been committed or in progress. I agree with the ACLU that the administration just need to outline if that is the instance they feel drone strikes are authorized.
 
2013-03-07 10:13:51 AM
Just imagine if President Obama HAD come back and specifically stated this would NEVER be allowed.

The GOP would suddenly be screaming about 'the DICTATOR making his own laws without congessional oversight' or some such shiat.

/Obvious obstructionists are obvious
 
2013-03-07 10:14:30 AM

Fart_Machine: MattStafford: 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?

So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?


that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD

*facepalm*
 
2013-03-07 10:15:39 AM

somedude210: that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD


They want that self fulfilling prophecy since they've been calling him socialist dictator from Kenya Obama for the last four years anyway.
 
2013-03-07 10:16:22 AM

somedude210: Fart_Machine: MattStafford: 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?

So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?

that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD

*facepalm*


On dark days I think this is a deliberate strategy for the next time there's a Republican president.
 
2013-03-07 10:16:28 AM
somedude210:
Thank you kindly. I honestly have no idea why when I think Rand Paul's filibuster, I think Billy Joel

images.wikia.com
 
2013-03-07 10:16:41 AM

somedude210: Fart_Machine: MattStafford: 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?

So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?

that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD

*facepalm*


It's ridiculous.  They're actually mad that he's not overtly overstepping his bounds as President.  Mostly because, if he does that, they can impeach him afterward and he's not taking the bait.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:03 AM

somedude210: greater extent? You're talking about a man who can't take a shiat without Republicans calling for his impeachment. He starts going on about this and suddenly he'll be "weak on terror, weak on defense, weak on AMERICA"

Between this and the economic threads we've had, you seem like you have the ability to be a very smart man, but you lack any cognitive ability to understand reality and how things actually work in this world.


Those dastardly republicans.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:24 AM

Infernalist: t's a political game, and if you look at the polls(the scoreboard), the GOP is losing badly. All their nonsense, rage and fury over these things, has generated zero animosity among the masses. Because, at the end of the day, most Americans trust this President to do the right thing. You can look that up, by the way. It's one of the polling features that they used in the pre-election polling.


Oh, that makes it alright, then. He's trusted. And certainly there's a good reason as to why he won't clarify what might justify such use of force, either within the USA or abroad. We just don't deserve to know or something. But that's OK. He's got likability! It's only Republicans who are trying to mess with him that can't see things for how they are. Staunch obstructionist conservatives like Wyden, Leahy, the ACLU or that jerk swahnhennessy.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:44 AM

somedude210: Obama has and continues to do so. Hell, he's asking for entitlement cuts, which goes against his own party but the people want, the republicans want, and gosh darn it, the republicans still hate him for not giving in 100% of the time.


Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:55 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: greater extent? You're talking about a man who can't take a shiat without Republicans calling for his impeachment. He starts going on about this and suddenly he'll be "weak on terror, weak on defense, weak on AMERICA"

Between this and the economic threads we've had, you seem like you have the ability to be a very smart man, but you lack any cognitive ability to understand reality and how things actually work in this world.

Those dastardly republicans.


You're flailing, dude.  Abandon thread.
 
2013-03-07 10:18:30 AM
So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?
 
2013-03-07 10:18:48 AM

somedude210: so you admit to this now? You gotta keep your stories straight, you're tripping over your own storylines


I never said anything otherwise.  In fact, I specifically stated it would have been good, as not funding the troops would have brought a ton on national attention to the issue.
 
2013-03-07 10:19:46 AM

MattStafford: Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.


Yes because the Executive Branch writes laws.

Someone missed their Schoolhouse Rock
 
2013-03-07 10:20:06 AM

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: t's a political game, and if you look at the polls(the scoreboard), the GOP is losing badly. All their nonsense, rage and fury over these things, has generated zero animosity among the masses. Because, at the end of the day, most Americans trust this President to do the right thing. You can look that up, by the way. It's one of the polling features that they used in the pre-election polling.

Oh, that makes it alright, then. He's trusted. And certainly there's a good reason as to why he won't clarify what might justify such use of force, either within the USA or abroad. We just don't deserve to know or something. But that's OK. He's got likability! It's only Republicans who are trying to mess with him that can't see things for how they are. Staunch obstructionist conservatives like Wyden, Leahy, the ACLU or that jerk swahnhennessy.


Yep, he's trusted to do the right thing.  Despite the best efforts to the contrary by the GOP, the American people just trust him.  Imagine that.

So, on one hand, you have the GOP saying we shouldn't trust him, because he's not detailing things enough.  And on the other, you have the American people going "no, we're good.  We trust him to do it correctly."

And the GOP rages on.
 
2013-03-07 10:20:39 AM

MattStafford: Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.


show me any time since he the republicans passed this right before the election that he could without getting yelled at or impeached?

better yet, show me where the bills from the Republicans in Congress put forth to take away this power
 
2013-03-07 10:20:54 AM

somedude210: 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

What about us Obama supporters who agree with Paul? That there needs to be legislation that prevents such things from ever being things? Its a job for congress to make sure Obama and whoever succeeds him to never use drones in this manner.


You don't understand.  No Obama supporter would agree with Paul on this.  Every Obama supporter is a drone who can't think past the next talking point.  It's absolutely impossible that you could disagree with the President on anything.
 
2013-03-07 10:21:21 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: so you admit to this now? You gotta keep your stories straight, you're tripping over your own storylines

I never said anything otherwise.  In fact, I specifically stated it would have been good, as not funding the troops would have brought a ton on national attention to the issue.


as well as lose him the election, although I imagine you'd prefer that too
 
2013-03-07 10:21:33 AM

Infernalist: And the GOP rages on.


Just going to ignore all those liberals, eh?
 
2013-03-07 10:21:47 AM

Aar1012: So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?


It's kinda weird.  They're mad at him for being a dictator-in-hiding AND they're mad that he's not subverting their Congressional powers by modifying existing law just 'because' they think he should.  At the same time.
 
2013-03-07 10:22:22 AM

Mentat: Every Obama supporter is a drone who can't think past the next talking point.


dude, I wish I had hellfire missiles....
 
2013-03-07 10:23:21 AM

Infernalist: Aar1012: So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?

It's kinda weird.  They're mad at him for being a dictator-in-hiding AND they're mad that he's not subverting their Congressional powers by modifying existing law just 'because' they think he should.  At the same time.


stay tuned for when the next republican president does exactly those two things because "OBAMA DID IT! WHY NOT US?"
 
2013-03-07 10:24:11 AM

Fart_Machine: Fista-Phobia: It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.

And coconuts.


Never forget the coconuts.
 
2013-03-07 10:26:07 AM

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: And the GOP rages on.

Just going to ignore all those liberals, eh?


When they're being retarded, yes, I'm going to ignore them.  I don't blame the man for a second for not wanting to nail down exactly how/when/where/why/to whom that goes into these decisions.  The GOP would just try to impeach him later over it, make political hay and harass him in general for the next few years, successfully making the narrative about Obama's decisions rather than their own pathetic fark ups.

If the GOP were sincere in their fears of an expanded Executive branch and what the President might do, they'd not be the GOP at all.   But, they're not sincere.  It's all a game to them.
 
2013-03-07 10:27:39 AM

Theaetetus: somedude210:
Thank you kindly. I honestly have no idea why when I think Rand Paul's filibuster, I think Billy Joel

[images.wikia.com image 480x360]


vote it up, sir ^_^
 
2013-03-07 10:27:43 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.

show me any time since he the republicans passed this right before the election that he could without getting yelled at or impeached?

better yet, show me where the bills from the Republicans in Congress put forth to take away this power


It's almost like the GOP wants to stop Obama from using this power, yet preserve it for a future president. I wonder why that could be.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:11 AM

slayer199: 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.


It pisses me off that I'm one of the few. I'm not sure if I'm angrier about that or that I was right when I said this will inevitably be applied inside the US because the precedent was set.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:27 AM

Carth: 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.


Except Holder specifically ruled out the use of drones in that scenario. He said the only possible way he could see them being used was in an immediate threat situation where there was imminent danger to the population; i.e. another 9/11 or similar attack. Anything less and the usual law enforcement assets would be more than capable of dealing with it. Rand is just white-knuckling a strawman of drones blowing up Americans at their dinner table for attention.
 
2013-03-07 10:32:37 AM
It falls under the same category as self-defense. If you really feel the need to do it, you are not likely to be thinking about the legality of it anyway,

Just promise to never user drones against citizens. It is unlikely to happen anyway as drones are really for getting at people that we can't arrest or shoot in the old fashioned way. If some Tom Clancy scenario occurs where a drone strike on American soil is necessary, I doubt anyone will be complaining about it.
 
2013-03-07 10:33:07 AM
The civil war called.  Turns out, in some situations the military can use whatever means necessary to take out a threat to the nation.

Drones work just as well for that situation.
 
2013-03-07 10:37:50 AM

Infernalist: Aar1012: So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?

It's kinda weird.  They're mad at him for being a dictator-in-hiding AND they're mad that he's not subverting their Congressional powers by modifying existing law just 'because' they think he should.  At the same time.


You have to understand that Obama is the most inhumane empty suit that created a weak-on-defense dicatorship in the history of forever. He'll lead legions of Obama Jügend and Waffen-DNC to take the capital after he appoints Jimmy Carter as Secretary of Defense and George Soros as Reichsführer-DNC.
 
2013-03-07 10:40:05 AM
I'm going to try and start over here:

Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties.  They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops.  Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not.  Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions.  He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.

Late 2012, Obama is reelected.

Yesterday, Rand Paul filibusters, and demands an explanation from the DoJ specifically stating what those provisions allow the president to do.  The president refuses to give an explicit answer about those provisions.  The president also refuses to lend any support to the issues that Rand Paul is bringing up.

Democrats are defending this course of events in the following ways (if I miss any, please let me know):

1. It was congress's fault in the first place for adding those provisions to the bill.
2. Obama could not veto the bill, due to political pressures. 
3. It is congress's responsibility, not Obama's, to remove or alter the provisions in the law.
4. Obama could not start a national dialogue about these provisions, or he would seam weak on defense and against the war on terror.
5. There is no reason for Obama to start a national dialogue, as nothing would get done anyway.

To which I respond:

1.  I concede the point, Congress should shoulder a large portion of the blame.
2.  I concede the point, it would have been a very politically dicey move to veto the bill - however, Obama could have certainly voice his opposition to the provisions louder, and brought more national attention to the issue.
3.  This is true in a technical sense, but Obama has the bully pulpit and completely refused to use it.  To argue that Obama has no influence over congress (particularly when his party controls one house) is complete bullshiat.
4.  If this is the case, why even elect him?  The point of electing someone who will protect your civil liberties is to have him stand up and protect those civil liberties.  If you elect a president based on his civil liberties promises, but then never expect him to stand up for those civil liberties because it would make him look weak, that might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  The argument boils down to "Obama can't stand up for civil liberties, because republicans will spin that to make him look weak on defense" and that is honestly one of the most cowardly arguments I've heard.  Stand up for what you believe in - make the fight about whether or not US citizens can be assassinated on US soil.
5.  Another completely idiotic argument.  Republicans won't change the bill anyway, so why try.  Then why the fark did you even elect him?

And I add:
6.  Why is Obama refusing to state "These are the explicit powers granted to me by these provisions, and I believe the violate our civil liberties in these ways"?  He should make it clear to nation what those damn republicans passed in this bill, and explain why he thinks this is unacceptable.  Yet he refuses to do so.
7.  Why did Obama not support Rand Paul during his filibuster.  Obama is supposed to be pro civil liberties, and a Senator just filibustered by going over how those liberties are in danger.  Obama has been silent on the issue, yet, as far as I can tell - he was against these very same provisions when the bill was being passed, and asked to have them removed.  Why would he not speak up when a Senator is saying the exact same thing, and a Senator across the aisle no less.  Here is a chance for bipartisan agreement on civil liberties, and Obama is silent on the matter.

The truth of the matter is that Obama wants those provisions.  If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders.
 
2013-03-07 10:41:20 AM

somedude210: /two things you never want to see being made: Laws and sausages


MMMMM LAWSAGES!
 
2013-03-07 10:42:56 AM

MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:

Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties.  They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops.  Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not.  Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions.  He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.

Late 2012, Obama is reelected.

Yesterday, Rand Paul filibusters, and demands an explanation from the DoJ specifically stating what those provisions allow the president to do.  The president refuses to give an explicit answer about those provisions.  The president also refuses to lend any support to the issues that Rand Paul is bringing up.

Democrats are defending this course of events in the following ways (if I miss any, please let me know):

1. It was congress's fault in the first place for adding those provisions to the bill.
2. Obama could not veto the bill, due to political pressures.
3. It is congress's responsibility, not Obama's, to remove or alter the provisions in the law.
4. Obama could not start a national dialogue about these provisions, or he would seam weak on defense and against the war on terror.
5. There is no reason for Obama to start a national dialogue, as nothing would get done anyway.

To which I respond:

1.  I concede the point, Congress should shoulder a large portion of the blame.
2.  I concede the point, it would have been a very politically dicey move to veto the bill - however, Obama could have certainly voice his opposition to the provisions louder, and brought more national attention to the issue.
3.  This is true in a technical sense, but Obama has the bully pulpit and completely refused to use it.  To argue that Obama has no influence over congress (particularly when his party controls one house) is complete bullshiat.
4.  If this is the case, why even ...


This is a gross mischaracterization of the debate.
 
2013-03-07 10:44:30 AM

qorkfiend: This is a gross mischaracterization of the debate.


In what way?
 
2013-03-07 10:49:33 AM

OrangeSnapper: Given the record that government forces have in targeting guys driving trucks, I would feel safer if we could at least order the police on the ground to arrest such a potential terrorist, rather than obliterating him with a missile.


Can you cite an example where they haven't done that?
 
2013-03-07 10:50:54 AM

MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:

Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties.  They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops.  Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not.  Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions.  He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.

Late 2012, Obama is reelected.

Yesterday, Rand Paul filibusters, and demands an explanation from the DoJ specifically stating what those provisions allow the president to do.  The president refuses to give an explicit answer about those provisions.  The president also refuses to lend any support to the issues that Rand Paul is bringing up.

Democrats are defending this course of events in the following ways (if I miss any, please let me know):

1. It was congress's fault in the first place for adding those provisions to the bill.
2. Obama could not veto the bill, due to political pressures. 
3. It is congress's responsibility, not Obama's, to remove or alter the provisions in the law.
4. Obama could not start a national dialogue about these provisions, or he would seam weak on defense and against the war on terror.
5. There is no reason for Obama to start a national dialogue, as nothing would get done anyway.

To which I respond:

1.  I concede the point, Congress should shoulder a large portion of the blame.
2.  I concede the point, it would have been a very politically dicey move to veto the bill - however, Obama could have certainly voice his opposition to the provisions louder, and brought more national attention to the issue.
3.  This is true in a technical sense, but Obama has the bully pulpit and completely refused to use it.  To argue that Obama has no influence over congress (particularly when his party controls one house) is complete bullshiat.
4.  If this is the case, why even ...


The truth of the matter is that Obama wants those provisions.  If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders.

If Obama truly wanted those provisions, the GOP would have committed ritual suicide before giving them to him.
Boiled down, they passed a bill that had a poison pill in it(those provisions), with the intent of either making the President veto a Defense bill in the months leading up to the general election, or sign off on a bill holding some very scary intentions for civil liberties.He chose the latter, knowing that a GOP administration at this time would have been lethal to our recovery as a nation.  Now, the GOP is harassing him over the same provisions that THEY CAME UP WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.It's akin to the President driving the GOP down the highway, and the car is starting to run out of gas.  "Let's stop here" he says, pointing to a nice gas station.  "No", says the GOP.  "Keep going.  We want to stop at the next one."  "Okay, fine."  he says. Running low on gas, the GOP points out a run down, gas station on the edge of town with plenty of vagrants hanging around.  "There, stop there."  "No, that's a horrible place."  "Well, do it or we run out of gas."  "Fine, but this is stupid." They stop for gas, and promptly get robbed, and the GOP looks up and says "Why did you stop here?  You're stupid for stopping here.  This is all your fault."The GOP made this happen and now they're trying to tax the President over it.  Could he have been more strident in pointing out what asshats the GOP were being?  Sure.  Would it have changed anything?  No.  The whole nation knows the GOP are a bunch of blithering asshats already, what good would it have done to get into a philosophical debate in those months leading up to the general election, other than to give the GOP chances to call the President unpatriotic and unAmerican for not funding the military promptly and happily?
 
2013-03-07 10:51:11 AM

MattStafford: qorkfiend: This is a gross mischaracterization of the debate.

In what way?


you still don't accept the fact that in order for this to be changed, there must be a law passed, to pass said law, you need Congress (both house and then senate) to pass this. As it stands right now, Obama taking a leak is akin to him shiatting on the constitution in the eyes/minds of many people who hold power within Congress (both House and senate), so he can advocate all he wants, it will fall on deaf ears and will go no where. There are real problems in this country that he has a better chance to enact real change on. biatching about Congress' inability to create and pass a law for something they want but refused to address prior to them magically coming across this issue serves no one and will not do anything to change the fact that this is a hypothetical situation that solely rests in the minds of republicans who want to divert attention away from the budget cuts they enacted and shift blame for something onto the President.

DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND. NOW?
 
2013-03-07 10:51:45 AM

LibertyHiller: Fart_Machine: Fista-Phobia: It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.

And coconuts.

Never forget the coconuts.


I like coconuts. You can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun.
 
2013-03-07 10:52:43 AM

MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:


[SNIP]


Ok, its been a while since I've taken any political courses. IIRC, the President doesn't actually have to sign things to be come law. After 10 days of him receiving it, if he doesn't sign it, it becomes law anyway.

So he had 3 courses of action:

1) Sign it and make people happy cause he's funding the troops, but piss people off because he's trying to get the ability to assassinate US citizens because they looked at him funny and caleld his momma fat.
2) Veto it (which has to be accompanied by an explanation of WHY it was vetoed, to which he just has to say, "I want to support the troops, but I'm NOT going to sanction a power to use strike drones against anyone we want. Its too much power. Fix this and I'll sign."
3) Not sign it and allow it to become law on its own. Take the time to address the nation and explain why he's not providing the glowing endorsement of a signature, but also not vetoing it outright. This allows him to ride the political fence.

Can't this thing be taken to the Supreme Court?
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report