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 10:53:28 AM
And for some reason, Fark just mangled my post.

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 10:58:17 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?


woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?
 
2013-03-07 11:00:57 AM

Infernalist: Now, the GOP is harassing him over the same provisions that THEY CAME UP WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.


First, I wouldn't consider Rand Paul representative of the entire GOP.  I would imagine the majority of the GOP still want these provisions in place.

Infernalist: .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.


What a tortured analogy.  Here is a better one:

President and GOP are driving a bus down the highway.  The president wants to listen to indie rock, and the GOP wants pop country. The GOP demands that they put pop country on the radio, or else they aren't handing out sandwiches to the passengers.  The president knows that if the passengers don't get their sandwiches, they're going to be pissed.  So he say fine, they put on the pop country, and hand out the sandwiches.  And from that point on, the president does not fight to change the station back to indie rock - even though he was elected on an indie rock platform.  When a member of the GOP breaks ranks and says "hey, maybe indie rock wouldn't be so bad" - the president is silent on the matter.

There is an analogy for you.

Infernalist: 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?


Again - it is entirely the GOP's fault that the president was unable to do anything at all about the provisions of this bill.  He was unable to specifically state to the American people what the provisions of this bill allowed him to do, because Republicans.  He was unable to ask congress to repeal or alter these provisions, because Republicans.  Despite the fact that the President is a Democrat, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats, the President is unable to do anything at all because Republicans.
 
2013-03-07 11:04:59 AM

somedude210: 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.


1.  So, since Obama can't pass the laws, he shouldn't do anything to fight for civil liberties.  That certainly seems like an awful argument.
2.  If Obama were to fight for civil liberties, no one in congress would care.  Another completely awful argument.
3.  Obama shouldn't worry about civil liberties and focus his efforts elsewhere.  Wow, 3/3 on completely awful arguments.

How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions.  They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things.  I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things.  Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?
 
2013-03-07 11:05:32 AM

GAT_00: 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.


You did call it...and most vocally.  I was against it for the same reasons...that it would ultimately be applied inside our borders.

I feel like I'm in a strange alternate universe when you and I agree...but we do on this issue.
 
2013-03-07 11:06:46 AM

not5am: woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?


What has Obama done, since the signing of that bill, to bring attention to those provisions that allow for some rather extreme violations of civil liberties.  What steps has he taken to try and alert the people, or to try and get congress to repeal or alter those provisions.

/just asking questions
 
2013-03-07 11:09:47 AM

MattStafford: 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?



There's a difference between giving Obama a pass and recognizing that the only thing he can really do is talk about it.  Which is likely to do more harm than good.

If the GOP gets its horse in this race and decides the detention provision is a gross violation of civil liberties, it'll be difficult for them to sell another Patriot Act without getting primaried over it.

This is one of those, "Either he doesn't care one whit, or he's actually playing a much more intelligent game than I usually give people credit for." situations.  After the gamesmanship on DOMA, I'm more willing to give that credit.  Shiat was impressive.
 
2013-03-07 11:09:57 AM

MattStafford: not5am: woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?

What has Obama done, since the signing of that bill, to bring attention to those provisions that allow for some rather extreme violations of civil liberties.  What steps has he taken to try and alert the people, or to try and get congress to repeal or alter those provisions.

/just asking questions


Why did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Why isn't he addressing these questions?

/rabble rabble.
 
2013-03-07 11:12:00 AM

MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions. They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things. I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things. Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?


What change, realistically, would it farking make? He can't pass laws, the congress would never bring this up, so what do you hope to accomplish? He stated and did all that he could do, unless you want him to go all dictator, then I guess there are some things he could do.

Its not that he shouldn't worry about civil liberties, it's that there are other things that need to be dealt with right now, such as the budget and equality (which is a civil liberty thing). Regardless, it still boils down to Congress having to do anything, something that Congress doesn't seem to keen on doing. So how do you propose he could do something meaningful here? Tell the world how bad republicans are? well that's just party politics, or everyone already knows how douchey they are. What else could you have him do? Say he won't use them, well that's done and right now that's all a president can do. Unless, of course, you want him to be a dictator

So give me real, worthwhile ideas of things he can do, that have some modicum chance of achieving. Difficulty: anything involving Congress is dead in the water

You've got...talk to people? That's it? That's pretty weak, even for a socialist commie dictator from Kenya. He can do more, right? He could do an executive order banning it? Well yes, I suppose he could...and then be impeached for it a week later.

So what else could Obama do to actual make a worthwhile change to this?
 
2013-03-07 11:12:23 AM

BeesNuts: There's a difference between giving Obama a pass and recognizing that the only thing he can really do is talk about it. Which is likely to do more harm than good.

If the GOP gets its horse in this race and decides the detention provision is a gross violation of civil liberties, it'll be difficult for them to sell another Patriot Act without getting primaried over it.

This is one of those, "Either he doesn't care one whit, or he's actually playing a much more intelligent game than I usually give people credit for." situations. After the gamesmanship on DOMA, I'm more willing to give that credit. Shiat was impressive.


It's like he is playing three dimensional chess, or something.  We just gotta trust him - right?
 
2013-03-07 11:12:31 AM

slayer199: GAT_00: 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.

You did call it...and most vocally.  I was against it for the same reasons...that it would ultimately be applied inside our borders.

I feel like I'm in a strange alternate universe when you and I agree...but we do on this issue.


That's where liberals and libertarians intersect. I'm against it also.

The Obama administration hasn't called for a repeal or vetoed the expansion of these powers because, well, why should they? Nobody is trying to take them back. Congress certainly isn't. The Supreme Court hasn't weighed on it.

The partisan bullsh*t in this case is somewhat a rare instance of "both sides are equally bad." Now that Democrats are in the White House, they believe they are the best stewards for this kind of power. Republicans in Congress aren't motivated to take it away when someday, they'll be back in the Executive again. It's why the filibuster doesn't get reformed, for instance. Each party is concerned with what happens once they are the ones with or without that tactic or power at their disposal.

Short-sighted? Yes. Idiotic? I agree. Unconstituational? I don't know, these powers haven't been challenged and brought up to the Supreme Court yet. That's really the big question: if any of the powers granted by FISA, Patriot Act, AMFU and NDAA are put to judicial review, how would this current court rule?
 
2013-03-07 11:14:08 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions. They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things. I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things. Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?

What change, realistically, would it farking make? He can't pass laws, the congress would never bring this up, so what do you hope to accomplish? He stated and did all that he could do, unless you want him to go all dictator, then I guess there are some things he could do.

Its not that he shouldn't worry about civil liberties, it's that there are other things that need to be dealt with right now, such as the budget and equality (which is a civil liberty thing). Regardless, it still boils down to Congress having to do anything, something that Congress doesn't seem to keen on doing. So how do you propose he could do something meaningful here? Tell the world how bad republicans are? well that's just party politics, or everyone already knows how douchey they are. What else could you have him do? Say he won't use them, well that's done and right now that's all a president can do. Unless, of course, you want him to be a dictator

So give me real, worthwhile ideas of things he can do, that have some modicum chance of achieving. Difficulty: anything involving Congress is dead in the water

You've got...talk to people? That's it? That's pretty weak, even for a socialist commie dictator from Kenya. He can do more, right? He could do an executive order banning it? Well yes, I suppose he could...and then be impeached for it a week later.

So what else could Obama do to actual make a worthwhile change to this?


Use his Drone Assassination ability on the filibustering Rand Paul?
 
2013-03-07 11:15:07 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: He didn't say it's okay. In fact the WH has stated that they don't intend to ever use it on US citizens on US soil.

Well, I'm convinced.  In fact, lets get rid of all of our Constitutional protections - as long as we have Obama's word on the matter, what do we have to fear?


Yeah, he should probably try to repeal those laws he never put into effect. Based on past performance, I'm sure Congress would absolutely love to work with him on getting that done. I'm sure we won't get another fillibuster (now that the Conservatives realize how much attention it can get you) about "keeping our nation as safe as possible!!"
 
2013-03-07 11:15:15 AM

MattStafford: It's like he is playing three dimensional chess, or something. We just gotta trust him - right?


what else can he do that doesn't involve Congress and won't get him impeached? We've already explained to you that him going on a tirade about it wherever he goes will get him no where and hurt his political capital for things he can get done
 
2013-03-07 11:16:03 AM

somedude210: What change, realistically, would it farking make? He can't pass laws, the congress would never bring this up, so what do you hope to accomplish? He stated and did all that he could do, unless you want him to go all dictator, then I guess there are some things he could do.


You don't think Obama saying, in the State of the Union, "The Republicans have passed a bill that gives the executive, in this case me, the ability to kill a US citizen on US soil for reasons the executive does not need to reveal or explain.  I find that these provisions are terrible, and that we need to have a national conversation on these provisions, and have congress change or repeal the law" would be useless?

You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?

WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?
 
2013-03-07 11:17:22 AM
Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.
 
2013-03-07 11:17:54 AM

MattStafford: You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?

WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?



talkingpointsmemo.com
Which reason do you want first?
 
2013-03-07 11:17:55 AM
 
2013-03-07 11:18:57 AM

Celerian: MattStafford: not5am: woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?

What has Obama done, since the signing of that bill, to bring attention to those provisions that allow for some rather extreme violations of civil liberties.  What steps has he taken to try and alert the people, or to try and get congress to repeal or alter those provisions.

/just asking questions

Why did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Why isn't he addressing these questions?

/rabble rabble.


There's a bit more to his question than the GB's schtick.  If Obama is really opposed to those provisions he can (and some would argue should) stand up and have a frank discussion directly with the American people about it.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have the desired effect of causing public outcry leading to an end to that kind of thing.

I think the fact that the country is split 50/50-ish leads to some problems when it comes to using the bully pulpit.  Remember when he said we should keep our tires inflated?  I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Americans deliberately drove more on less inflated tires to screw the dummycrat...  that's the kind of environment we're in.  And it sucks.

But Obama's demonstrated that he's aware of the tools available to him if he wants to get something done.  I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the detention provision was prohibited from any future budget bills by the time he leaves office.  Likewise, I wouldn't need a fainting couch if it stayed right where it is.
 
2013-03-07 11:19:26 AM

EyeballKid: Which reason do you want first?


I know, thank god Romney wasn't elected.  He'd probably try to say that he has the right to assassinate US citizens without trial or something.  God, that would be terrible.
 
2013-03-07 11:21:37 AM

MattStafford: "The Republicans have passed a bill that gives the executive, in this case me, the ability to kill a US citizen on US soil for reasons the executive does not need to reveal or explain. I find that these provisions are terrible, and that we need to have a national conversation on these provisions, and have congress change or repeal the law"


so you want him to confess to having these powers given to him that you don't know if he's used or not? Because this isn't grounds for impeachment? Dude just admitted he can kill people at will, by law, I think that's treason right there. We should totally impeach his ass for it!

MattStafford: You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?


and tell us what? Republicans are bad douchenozzels that sidelined him into taking the lesser of two evils because they want to see him hung (some of them, literally)? We already know this. We knew when they put this provision in that the whole thing was a ploy to get him to veto it and look soft on terrorism during an election

MattStafford: WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?


Because he cares about more than 47% of the country? Because he's a decent guy? Because he's not an android? Because he actually is trying to improve this country? But mostly because we knew that electing him would short-circuit something in the brains of people like you who freak the fark out over everything that he can, cannot, will or won't do.

Congrats, 52% of the country just trolled your ass, how does it feel?
 
2013-03-07 11:21:49 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: It's like he is playing three dimensional chess, or something. We just gotta trust him - right?

what else can he do that doesn't involve Congress and won't get him impeached? We've already explained to you that him going on a tirade about it wherever he goes will get him no where and hurt his political capital for things he can get done


I'm sorry, I don't understand how the President accelerating the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and/or calling for a slowdown in counterterrorism operations - both of which are legal and feasible for his office to achieve (The former he's actually doing) - would result in impeachment proceedings. Obama doesn't have to shirk his executive duties to change policy.
 
2013-03-07 11:21:52 AM

Fart_Machine: Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.


It's almost like he did or something
 
2013-03-07 11:22:37 AM

MattStafford: I know, thank god Romney wasn't elected. He'd probably try to say that he has the right to assassinate US citizens without trial or something. God, that would be terrible.


Or, he'd just bankrupt the country helping his cult and all the people who rented his influence for the election. But, the most pressing issue should have been how each candidate would have dealt with Rand Paul's imaginary domestic boogeyman.
 
2013-03-07 11:23:30 AM

MattStafford: Bully Pulpit


again, what could telling the country that the GOP House is a bunch of rabble rousers hellbent on seeing him be a powerless figurehead actually achieve? Nothing. So the bully pulpit wouldn't really work out real well for him in this instance. Next.
 
2013-03-07 11:25:32 AM

MattStafford: Fart_Machine: Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.

It's almost like he did or something


he renews a fight over something that Congress (and Paul himself) had the ability to stop? Instead they enabled it?
 
2013-03-07 11:25:47 AM

EyeballKid: MattStafford: You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?

WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?


[talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x360]
Which reason do you want first?


God, they both look like insane skeleton men.

BeesNuts: There's a bit more to his question than the GB's schtick.  If Obama is really opposed to those provisions he can (and some would argue should) stand up and have a frank discussion directly with the American people about it.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have the desired effect of causing public outcry leading to an end to that kind of thing.

I think the fact that the country is split 50/50-ish leads to some problems when it comes to using the bully pulpit.  Remember when he said we should keep our tires inflated?  I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Americans deliberately drove more on less inflated tires to screw the dummycrat...  that's the kind of environment we're in.  And it sucks.

But Obama's demonstrated that he's aware of the tools available to him if he wants to get something done.  I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the detention provision was prohibited from any future budget bills by the time he leaves office.  Likewise, I wouldn't need a fainting couch if it stayed right where it is.


I agree with you. And I did mention earlier the three real options Obama had. I didn't have to readdress the fact that no matter which way he went, he was still screwed.  The best option, to me, seemed to be just let it pass into law without a signature, but I'm sure there would be plenty of spin about how he wanted the drone strike ability but really didn't want to fund the troops. Maybe he should have vetoed it and just laughed at the republicans. I would be pretty forgiving to hear, "Of course I want to fund the troops, but I'm not signing in an ability to kill american citizens for no reason." In his shoes, I think I would have started calling out the GOP long ago. He needs to stand firm and shut them down when they're trying to be underhanded.
 
2013-03-07 11:26:16 AM

somedude210: so you want him to confess to having these powers given to him that you don't know if he's used or not? Because this isn't grounds for impeachment? Dude just admitted he can kill people at will, by law, I think that's treason right there. We should totally impeach his ass for it!


Um, what?  I'm fairly confident explaining the what the provisions in a law allow him to do is not an impeachable offense.  Are you serious on this?

somedude210: and tell us what? Republicans are bad douchenozzels that sidelined him into taking the lesser of two evils because they want to see him hung (some of them, literally)? We already know this. We knew when they put this provision in that the whole thing was a ploy to get him to veto it and look soft on terrorism during an election


He needs to tell the people what the lesser of those two evils was, which he refuses to do.  It is a huge difference between saying "republicans used politics to make me sign something I didn't want to" and "republicans used politics to make me allow assassination of US citizens without trial".
 
2013-03-07 11:27:05 AM

MattStafford: Fart_Machine: Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.

It's almost like he did or something


Good for him on that. What does this have to do with a law barring drone strikes on US citizens?
 
2013-03-07 11:27:43 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.


Your in the same boat as us liberals who favor gun ownership.
 
2013-03-07 11:29:39 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


Now, now, you just need to be institutionalized for your own safety, you're not a threat. By the way, if you ever get tired of hearing the voices and so forth, Obamcare means you can get the help you need.
 
2013-03-07 11:30:01 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: Bully Pulpit

again, what could telling the country that the GOP House is a bunch of rabble rousers hellbent on seeing him be a powerless figurehead actually achieve? Nothing. So the bully pulpit wouldn't really work out real well for him in this instance. Next.


There are actually several things well within the President's authority to decrease and limit the Patriot Act and other powers.

- Prisoner transfer from Guantanamo to country of origin, albeit structured and limited at first
- Telling the DEA and DOJ to stand down from minor drug offenders, and states with legal pot laws on the books
- Reduce and/or eliminate covert operations in Yemen, Horn of Africa and elsewhere
- Bring Afghanistan to full closure
- Put an end date to Plan Colombia, and put the onus on that government to finish its negotiations with the FARC
- Become an advocate for decriminalization of certain controlled substances, as opposed to legalization, which is practically unteneable in DC.
- Request authorization to transfer war on terror funds to other defense-related operations
- Submit budget proposals asking for more funds on job programs, energy and infrastructure spending, instead of defense
 
2013-03-07 11:32:08 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: so you want him to confess to having these powers given to him that you don't know if he's used or not? Because this isn't grounds for impeachment? Dude just admitted he can kill people at will, by law, I think that's treason right there. We should totally impeach his ass for it!

Um, what?  I'm fairly confident explaining the what the provisions in a law allow him to do is not an impeachable offense.  Are you serious on this?

somedude210: and tell us what? Republicans are bad douchenozzels that sidelined him into taking the lesser of two evils because they want to see him hung (some of them, literally)? We already know this. We knew when they put this provision in that the whole thing was a ploy to get him to veto it and look soft on terrorism during an election

He needs to tell the people what the lesser of those two evils was, which he refuses to do.  It is a huge difference between saying "republicans used politics to make me sign something I didn't want to" and "republicans used politics to make me allow assassination of US citizens without trial".


So, you got your PoliSci and law degrees from the same place you got your economics degree, huh?
 
2013-03-07 11:32:13 AM

MattStafford: You don't think Obama saying, in the State of the Union, "The Republicans have passed a bill..." would be useless?


Actually, I think, precisely, that Obama casting blame on republicans for ANYTHING would be useless.  Half this country would take it as a personal attack and, as such, would immediately adopt the policy under question as a rallying cry against Obummer.

What he *can* do, is force Republican Senators, many of whom are vulnerable both at primary time and general time, to stake out this contrary position FOR him.  Let Rand Paul convince people in Kentucky that this is a bad policy.  Rand Paul is going to be a much more effective messenger anyway.
 
2013-03-07 11:32:15 AM

MattStafford: Um, what? I'm fairly confident explaining the what the provisions in a law allow him to do is not an impeachable offense. Are you serious on this?


my sarcasm/dry wit is tough to read through text sometimes. I thought I do a decent enough job showing it though. But I'm pretty sure we have some executive orders in place preventing the assassination of people, both foreign and domestic, that someone, somewhere would use as grounds for impeachment and removal if he ever openly admitted "fark y'all, I can totes kill you with a drone! Thanks Congress!"

MattStafford: He needs to tell the people what the lesser of those two evils was, which he refuses to do. It is a huge difference between saying "republicans used politics to make me sign something I didn't want to" and "republicans used politics to make me allow assassination of US citizens without trial".


those that would understand that he's not responsible for these provisions already know who is responsible and why they did it in the first place. If it got challenged, it could go to the SC but there would need to be a court case about it first. so until then, its a congressional thing to deal with
 
2013-03-07 11:33:30 AM

MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions.  They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things.  I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things.  Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?


If the president was to stop what he's doing to point out every poison pill the obstructionist GOP puts in very bill they can, he'd never get anything done. but, that's obviously the goal, isn't it?
 
2013-03-07 11:34:20 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: Bully Pulpit

again, what could telling the country that the GOP House is a bunch of rabble rousers hellbent on seeing him be a powerless figurehead actually achieve? Nothing. So the bully pulpit wouldn't really work out real well for him in this instance. Next.


and the president did that leading upto the sequester, which the house and senate gop used as an excuse to NOT work with him because he was being mean to them in public.
 
2013-03-07 11:35:31 AM

somedude210: If it got challenged, it could go to the SC but there would need to be a court case about it first.


It can't get challenged.  You know why?  The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it!  Isn't that a tricky move by the Obama administration?
 
2013-03-07 11:36:29 AM

vudutek: If the president was to stop what he's doing to point out every poison pill the obstructionist GOP puts in very bill they can, he'd never get anything done. but, that's obviously the goal, isn't it?


I think he could probably take time out his day to address the one that allows assassination of us citizens without a trial.  That might be the one he would like to address.

But nope, those dastardly republicans again!
 
2013-03-07 11:37:21 AM

vudutek: MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions.  They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things.  I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things.  Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?

If the president was to stop what he's doing to point out every poison pill the obstructionist GOP puts in very bill they can, he'd never get anything done. but, that's obviously the goal, isn't it?


The thing that is so weird is that a majority of Republicans voters agree with Obama. But for some reason, their "leaders" in Washington don't care.
 
2013-03-07 11:38:39 AM

BeesNuts: Actually, I think, precisely, that Obama casting blame on republicans for ANYTHING would be useless. Half this country would take it as a personal attack and, as such, would immediately adopt the policy under question as a rallying cry against Obummer.


Then say congress passed a bill - it had bipartisan support.

BeesNuts: What he *can* do, is force Republican Senators, many of whom are vulnerable both at primary time and general time, to stake out this contrary position FOR him. Let Rand Paul convince people in Kentucky that this is a bad policy. Rand Paul is going to be a much more effective messenger anyway.


You are suggesting a better course of action would be to let congress (the very same people who passed this bill over his objections) be the ones to explain to the people why this is a bad law?  Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?  How many other senators are going to go Rand on this one?
 
2013-03-07 11:39:17 AM
There are just a few problems with these. I'll see if I can translate them into the typical GOP response:

- Prisoner transfer from Guantanamo to country of origin, albeit structured and limited at first OMG HE'S LETTING TERRORISTS LOOSE!!!!!
- Telling the DEA and DOJ to stand down from minor drug offenders, and states with legal pot laws on the books OMG HE'S SOFT ON CRIME! WHY ISN'T HE ENFORCING THE LAWS!!!!
- Reduce and/or eliminate covert operations in Yemen, Horn of Africa and elsewhere OMG SOFT ON TERRORISMS! WHY DOES HE NOT WANT AMERICA PROTECTED!?!!
- Bring Afghanistan to full closure Okay, I don't have much on this but TERRORISTS!!!!
- Put an end date to Plan Colombia, and put the onus on that government to finish its negotiations with the FARC DAMN YOU DREW CURTIS!!!!! ALSO! SOFT ON DRUGS, HIPPIE-IN-CHIEF!!!
- Become an advocate for decriminalization of certain controlled substances, as opposed to legalization, which is practically unteneable in DC. SOFT ON DRUGS/CRIME/TERRORISMS!!!
- Request authorization to transfer war on terror funds to other defense-related operations SOFT ON TERRORISMS! WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA/TROOPS!!!!?
- Submit budget proposals asking for more funds on job programs, energy and infrastructure spending, instead of defense OBAMA A DICTATOR PICKING AND CHOOSING WHO LIVES AND DIES IN THE ECONOMY?!!?!

the sad thing is, I've heard this all before, from the GOP, for similar things Obama wants to do or tried doing
 
2013-03-07 11:39:19 AM
Celerian:BeesNuts: There's a bit more to his question than the GB's schtick.  If Obama is really opposed to those provisions he can (and some would argue should) stand up and have a frank discussion directly with the American people about it.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have the desired effect of causing public outcry leading to an end to that kind of thing.

I think the fact that the country is split 50/50-ish leads to some problems when it comes to using the bully pulpit.  Remember when he said we should keep our tires inflated?  I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Americans deliberately drove more on less inflated tires to screw the dummycrat...  that's the kind of environment we're in.  And it sucks.

But Obama's demonstrated that he's aware of the tools available to him if he wants to get something done.  I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the detention provision was prohibited from any future budget bills by the time he leaves office.  Likewise, I wouldn't need a fainting couch if it stayed right where it is.

I agree with you. And I did mention earlier the three real options Obama had. I didn't have to readdress the fact that no matter which way he went, he was still screwed.  The best option, to me, seemed to be just let it pass into law without a signature, but I'm sure there would be plenty of spin about how he wanted the drone strike ability but really didn't want to fund the troops. Maybe he should have vetoed it and just laughed at the republicans. I would be pretty forgiving to hear, "Of course I want to fund the troops, but I'm not signing in an ability to kill american citizens for no reason." In his shoes, I ...


High five, brother.

I'll be honest and say I didn't read the whole thread :P  But as a point of order, "just asking questions" usually applies better to REALLY farking dumb questions.  Like "Does Obama favor banning microwave ovens for individuals making more than 15 dollars an hour?"  Or "How many dead dogs has Obama personally been responsible for with his dietary predilections since his usurpation of the White House?  America Demands Answers.  Find out more at Blaze.com"

Matt's not *quite* there.

Proper form might have been "You sure sound *concerned*." or even "yes, but what has he done for us LATELY?"
 
2013-03-07 11:40:58 AM

MattStafford: The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it! Isn't that a tricky move by the Obama administration?


hahaha, that's a new one. Please, give me a citation for that.

also, I must point out that a law is a law, the DOJ doesn't have to recognize it to have it challenged in court
 
2013-03-07 11:41:06 AM

MattStafford: I know, thank god Romney wasn't elected.  He'd probably try to say that he has the right to sell US citizens without paying taxes or something.  God, that would be legit.

 
2013-03-07 11:41:17 AM

somedude210: the sad thing is, I've heard this all before, from the GOP, for similar things Obama wants to do or tried doing


So you're argument basically comes down to this:

We elected Obama to do a bunch of things.  If, however, Obama did any of those things, Republicans would disagree and try to make Obama look bad.  Therefore, Obama shouldn't do any of these things, and the fact that Obama won't do any of these things is the Republicans fault.
 
2013-03-07 11:41:33 AM
Not sure about a vote after this, God knows I've never been a governing man.
Baptised by Aqua Buddha I wade into the Congress to lower taxes all across the land.
 
2013-03-07 11:42:55 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.


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

The fact he didn't want them, is proof to you that he wanted them.

I wish I could say this is the stupidest thing you've ever said.  But it isn't.
 
2013-03-07 11:43:50 AM

somedude210: hahaha, that's a new one. Please, give me a citation for that.

also, I must point out that a law is a law, the DOJ doesn't have to recognize it to have it challenged in court


People cannot sue on behalf of Awlaki, because the Obama administration refuses to officially recognize the drone strike program.  People are fighting for the right to sue, and guess who is fighting back?  The Obama administration.  Take off the blinders and do some research.
 
2013-03-07 11:44:09 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: If it got challenged, it could go to the SC but there would need to be a court case about it first.

It can't get challenged.  You know why?  The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it!  Isn't that a tricky move by the Obama administration?


If someone challenged it, his DOJ would be obligated to provide a constitutional defense.  Either Obama doesn't want it heard because he's worried it will get overturned, or he's worried it will be determined to be constitutionally sound.  At which point we're stuck with it.

If he's worried about it being overturned, he's a bad guy and he should feel bad.  If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.
 
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