Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > It's Like He WANTS To Lose

It's Like He WANTS To Lose (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 02:41 PM
 
Pobrecito. That would be "throwing flying spaghetti monster" against the wall.

BTW the State Department wants to know how CNN removed the Ambassador's diary from a "crime scene"
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2012, 03:41 PM
 
Chongo: MacNN's spaghetti flinging news crawl.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 05:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Pobrecito. That would be "throwing flying spaghetti monster" against the wall.
BTW the State Department wants to know how CNN removed the Ambassador's diary from a "crime scene"
Jesus, start a new thread if you want to talk about it. You seem to have anti-liberal news tourettes.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Romney thinks airplane passengers should be able to roll down their windows. Seriously.
I think we now know why Romney seems like such a robot: he really is a robot. Liberals from the future have sent Romneybot back in time to destroy the Republican Party, one gaffe at a time. He's the Mormonater!
So, it's being claimed that Romney was actually joking. Here's the New York Magazine on the subject. But I don't buy it.

Ashley Parker, the author of the report that was the source of subsequent news reports, claims it was "obviously a joke from the context."
The Los Angeles Times story that relayed Romney's airplane remark to the world was based off a pool report written by the New York Times's Ashley Parker. When we asked Parker this morning whether it seemed as if Romney made the mark in jest, she left no doubt. "Romney was joking," she e-mailed. Parker told us that while the pool report didn't explicitly indicate that Romney was joking, it was self-evident that he was. "The pool report provided the full transcript of his comments on Ann's plane scare," she said, "and it was clear from the context that he was not being serious."
However, the utterly disreputable web-rag The Blaze claims people actually laughed at the joke, which is an interesting detail for Parker to leave out when retelling the story.
"Basically he was retelling the story and when he said ‘I don’t know why they don’t have roll down windows on airplanes,’ he looked at the audience and everyone laughed,” Everitt told TheBlaze. “It was a clearly delivered joke … There were 1,000 people there that will tell you the same thing.”
I'm not sure I believe The Blaze's version of the story, but Parker's version doesn't really gel with me either.

You see, I watched the video. Romney doesn't appear to be joking. People in the audience laughed, but at the stupidity of the statement, not at the purported joke.

When he says "The windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem," he looks quite serious.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
It simply seems obvious that it was a joke...? How could anyone in good faith think that it was not?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
It simply seems obvious that it was a joke...? How could anyone in good faith think that it was not?
Watch the video. It's not a joke. With a straight face, he said "it's a real problem." With a straight face, he suggested opening the windows to let oxygen in.

So, would it surprise anyone here that Romney yet again said something incredibly stupid? Of course not, happens on every day that ends in the letter "y."

CBS News: Romney says teacher contributions to politicians should be limited.

Let that sink in for a second.

Corporations are people. Teachers? Apparently not.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 05:01 PM
 
I think this says it all....

5787/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 08:20 PM
 
I just watched the video. It's definitely less damning than the quote on its own.

There wasn't a joke in there per se, but he understands how comedy works to the point he realizes the idea of rolling down a window in a plane is amusing, and he's obviously amused by it.

After making the amusing point, he's being extemporaneously honest. I'm sure he doesn't know why you can't roll them down. That's not his thing.

The "real problem" isn't windows which don't roll down, it's people trapped on burning airplanes. He's not offering rolling windows down as a solution. The point of his comment was there is no solution to a fire in an air-tight container. The quote implies his thought process was linear when I don't think it was.

He was talking about something which could have killed his wife while she was working for him. I'm sure he's not going to be at his most together when talking off-the-cuff about it.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 02:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
It simply seems obvious that it was a joke...? How could anyone in good faith think that it was not?
Watch the video. It's not a joke. With a straight face, he said "it's a real problem." With a straight face, he suggested opening the windows to let oxygen in.
I still think it's a deadpan joke.

Corporations are people. Teachers? Apparently not.
It always amazes me that corporations can donate money to politicians. That's certainly one thing that Canada recently got right.

IMO it's one of the biggest failures of the US political system. But I'm not sure I see too many people mentioning it around here, which is slightly surprising now that I think about it.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 05:12 AM
 
This explanation makes more sense.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 06:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
CBS News: Romney says teacher contributions to politicians should be limited.
Let that sink in for a second.
Corporations are people. Teachers? Apparently not.
This is incredibly arrogant. May as well say that no politician who gets campaign donations from big oil can sit on the EPA or Energy commissions. Or no politician who gets money from halliburton can discuss defense policy.

That could be interesting.

Actually, limiting corporate donations is fine by me. Are unions corporations?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Actually, limiting corporate donations is fine by me. Are unions corporations?
I alluded to it above, but in Canada corporations, unincorporated associations and trade unions can no longer make donations. Only citizens and permanent residents of Canada can make political donations - of no more than $1100.

I don't mean to unnecessarily wave the flag so to speak - but that makes so much sense it actually hurts.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 10:30 AM
 
I would suggest that all you Republicans look at this Electoral collage map from the Goldwater loss in 1964. The Romney loss this year is gonna look a lot like that.



I also suggest you look at this Tax Burden chart from the American Enterprise Institute, ironically titled "The U.S. income tax code is very progressive." See those red columns on the right labelled 27% and 26%? Those are gonna be equal or higher than the one labelled 34% after Romney is crushed. Right now, the income tax burden is extremely regressive. All those people in the $100,000 - 250,000 group are gonna vote Obama, because they're tired of watching the mega-rich fnck them over.

     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I also suggest you look at this Tax Burden chart from the American Enterprise Institute, ironically titled "The U.S. income tax code is very progressive." See those red columns on the right labelled 27% and 26%? Those are gonna be equal or higher than the one labelled 34% after Romney is crushed. Right now, the income tax burden is extremely regressive. All those people in the $100,000 - 250,000 group are gonna vote Obama, because they're tired of watching the mega-rich fnck them over.
One, there's still a house of congress controlled by Republicans. Two, there are too many Blue Dogs in the Senate. Three, you can be extremely wealthy and not have "income". I have income by choice, but can put an end to that very quickly.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I would suggest that all you Republicans look at this Electoral collage map from the Goldwater loss in 1964. The Romney loss this year is gonna look a lot like that.
Or, it will look like this, minus Minnesota.

45/47
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
One, there's still a house of congress controlled by Republicans.
For now. For many, Romney is ruining their re-election hopes. Pretty soon, lots of Republicans are gonna distance themselves from Romney to save their own asses.

Two, there are too many Blue Dogs in the Senate.
Maybe. But I did a quick Google for "Senate votes to end Bush tax cuts," and the first result was this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/26/wonkbook-the-senates-unusual-vote-on-the-bush-tax-cuts/

In June, the Democrat-controlled Senate voted to end the Bush tax cuts for everyone above $250,000 a year. The Senate Democrats as a whole are ready to raise taxes on the mega-rich.

Three, you can be extremely wealthy and not have "income". I have income by choice, but can put an end to that very quickly.
You're gonna stop working over a 7% increase per dollar, just to be vindictive? Do you think enough people are gonna do this to matter?

Taxes on the rich has been much, much higher in the past. Did they all stop working then? No, and they won't stop now either. Threaten to "go Galt" if you want, no one cares.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Or, it will look like this, minus Minnesota.
If you think Romney is another Reagan, I have a bridge to sell you.

Goldwater torpedoed his campaign with a single stupid remark. Romney makes a stupid remark almost every day. Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj7BHEPGARQ

That's the most incredibly moronic, tone-deaf thing a politician has ever done in the history of forever. And fncking hilarious.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You're gonna stop working over a 7% increase per dollar, just to be vindictive? Do you think enough people are gonna do this to matter?
Taxes on the rich has been much, much higher in the past. Did they all stop working then? No, and they won't stop now either. Threaten to "go Galt" if you want, no one cares.
He's talking about creative yet legal bookkeeping.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He's talking about creative yet legal bookkeeping.
I don't think he is.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
If you think Romney is another Reagan, I have a bridge to sell you.
Goldwater torpedoed his campaign with a single stupid remark. Romney makes a stupid remark almost every day. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj7BHEPGARQ
That's the most incredibly moronic, tone-deaf thing a politician has ever done in the history of forever. And fncking hilarious.
Honestly, I'm not seeing it for whatever reason.

Scarborough felt like he should work it though, which I find more problematic for him than the thing itself.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
For now. For many, Romney is ruining their re-election hopes. Pretty soon, lots of Republicans are gonna distance themselves from Romney to save their own asses.
Until there's any actual proof, that's just your wishful, and massively biased, thinking.

Maybe. But I did a quick Google for "Senate votes to end Bush tax cuts," and the first result was this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/26/wonkbook-the-senates-unusual-vote-on-the-bush-tax-cuts/
In June, the Democrat-controlled Senate voted to end the Bush tax cuts for everyone above $250,000 a year. The Senate Democrats as a whole are ready to raise taxes on the mega-rich.

You're gonna stop working over a 7% increase per dollar, just to be vindictive? Do you think enough people are gonna do this to matter?
Taxes on the rich has been much, much higher in the past. Did they all stop working then? No, and they won't stop now either. Threaten to "go Galt" if you want, no one cares.
I'm pretty sure I said that I support an end to the tax cut on long term cap gains for folks making more than $250k /yr... Let's see, where did I put that? Oh, hey, here it is.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Also, I'm in favor of the repeal of the tax cut on long-term cap gains for households making in excess of $250k /yr, probably moving to a graduated system: 30% for $750k+, 25% for $450k-$749k, 20% for $250k-$449k, and 15% for everyone else, with an overall, short and long-term, cap gains tax ceiling of 30%.

To make the changes you're claiming, however, the tax rate would have to climb, much, much higher than simply repealing the cut on LTCG to make them even with short term. It would have to be raised to 50-60%, if not more, and that just won't fly. Ever. No one cares? Oh dear me, how sad.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Honestly, I'm not seeing it for whatever reason.
Scarborough felt like he should work it though, which I find more problematic for him than the thing itself.

Yeah, of the stupid things Romney's said, I'm just not seeing that as one of them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Until there's any actual proof, that's just your wishful, and massively biased, thinking.
You don't think the quality of the campaign for President has any effect on Senate and House seats?

I'm pretty sure I said that I support an end to the tax cut on long term cap gains for folks making more than $250k /yr... Let's see, where did I put that? Oh, hey, here it is.
Ok. Try to remember not everyone is gonna remember everything you've ever posted.

Besides, I was mostly disputing your claim that any of the mega-rich might stop working over 7% of income.

To make the changes you're claiming, however, the tax rate would have to climb, much, much higher than simply repealing the cut on LTCG to make them even with short term. It would have to be raised to 50-60%, if not more, and that just won't fly. Ever. No one cares? Oh dear me, how sad.
Your math doesn't make any sense. You don't need to raise anything to 60% just to make up for 7%.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You don't think the quality of the campaign for President has any effect on Senate and House seats?
When both candidates are so shitty? No.

Ok. Try to remember not everyone is gonna remember everything you've ever posted.
You were the 3rd poster in that thread... a weeks ago...

Besides, I was mostly disputing your claim that any of the mega-rich might stop working over 7% of income.
Your math doesn't make any sense. You don't need to raise anything to 60% just to make up for 7%.
To significantly lower taxes on the 100-250k by the amounts you were indicating, it's going to take a lot more than a 7% increase on taxes for LTCG for the wealthiest 1%.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
When both candidates are so shitty? No.
Obama's not a shitty candidate to the people who now have access to health insurance for the first time, to the people who work in the auto industry, to the people who think women and gays deserve their basic rights recognized, or to the people who wanted to see Bin Laden get his. To many people, Obama is the best President in living memory, and I find it hard to disagree.

Especially when the other side worships a President who supported South American death squads, funnelled weapons to Iran, ignored a raging epidemic, gave the lunatic "religious right" a public platform, but was a "great communicator" because he could passably deliver a bunch of speeches someone else wrote for him.

You were the 3rd poster in that thread... a weeks ago...
I still don't remember. But I do remember, whenever I suggest the very rich aren't paying their fair share, you push back hard.

To significantly lower taxes on the 100-250k by the amounts you were indicating, it's going to take a lot more than a 7% increase on taxes for LTCG for the wealthiest 1%.
I didn't advocate lowering taxes on the 100-250k, just raising the level of the 250k+ to their level: 34%. You know: fairness.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 01:58 PM
 
Obama's not a shitty candidate, but he operates in a very shitty environment that makes it difficult to do things that aren't shitty.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Obama's not a shitty candidate to the people who now have access to health insurance for the first time, to the people who work in the auto industry, to the people who think women and gays deserve their basic rights recognized, or to the people who wanted to see Bin Laden get his. To many people, Obama is the best President in living memory, and I find it hard to disagree.
The man has more broken campaign promises than the last 3 presidents combined, and has done more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years. The majority of states have already said they won't support or enforce the insurance requirement for individuals (the Individual Mandate), thereby making it toothless. He's been an absolute train wreck.

I still don't remember. But I do remember, whenever I suggest the very rich aren't paying their fair share, you push back hard.
In all honesty, if you don't remember writing 6+ paragraphs worth of content a week ago, then you should likely go get checked out by a physician.

I didn't advocate lowering taxes on the 100-250k, just raising the level of the 250k+ to their level: 34%. You know: fairness.
Is that "Canadian" fairness or "American" fairness?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Obama's not a shitty candidate, but he operates in a very shitty environment that makes it difficult to do things that aren't shitty.
I can't place Obama's faults on anyone but himself. I know politics requires compromise, but some of the things he's done can't be written off that way.

His stance on medical marijuana is inexcusable bullsh!t, and his lack of positive movement on drugs at all is discouraging to lots of people.

I know he has positive goals in mind regarding banking regulations and campaign finance reform, but he's really dragging his feet.

His lack of interest in justice for political abuses is pretty sad. No one will ever see a day of jail for torture, for bank fraud, for lying about Iraqi WMDs. That's probably a political calculation, but it's terribly unjust all the same.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The man has more broken campaign promises than the last 3 presidents combined
Ludicrous hyperbole.

and has done more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years.
Is that so? Got, like, a reason for that perspective?

The majority of states have already said they won't support or enforce the insurance requirement for individuals (the Individual Mandate), thereby making it toothless. He's been an absolute train wreck.
That will be their problem then. When the uninsured continue to drain public hospitals because they aren't insured, the people of that state will continue to get stuck with the bill. They'll come around when they see that it saves the taxpayer money.

Is that "Canadian" fairness or "American" fairness?
Neither, really, since Canada also under-taxes capital gains in the exact same way as the USA. It's a national disgrace here too.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Ludicrous hyperbole.
Really? You have no idea who you're banging the drum for.

Is that so? Got, like, a reason for that perspective?
1) Codified indefinite detention into law.
2) Drew up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process.
3) Proceeded with warrantless spying on American citizens.
4) Prosecuted Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets.
5) Reinterpreted the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible;
6) entered and prosecuted such a war.
7) Institutionalized invasive scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports. Then codified into law that TSA agents are granted special protection from criminal prosecution or civil penalties.
8) Oversaw a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents can also patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots.
9) Waged an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries, directly authorizing strikes upon civilian population centers, also without Congressional declaration.
10) Invoked the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on their merits.
11) Presided over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, in clear violation of California state law.
12) Selected an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.
13) And the best one, reauthorized the Patriot Act, indefinitely.

But, uh, yeah, he's been a real peach.

That will be their problem then. When the uninsured continue to drain public hospitals because they aren't insured, the people of that state will continue to get stuck with the bill. They'll come around when they see that it saves the taxpayer money.
It won't save taxpayer money, because there is no taxpayer money. He picked the worst time since the 1930s to try to undertake something like this, and for no other reason than his own pride. That dipshit.

Neither, really, since Canada also under-taxes capital gains in the exact same way as the USA. It's a national disgrace here too.
You should work on that then, since that's your country. Instead of barking at Americans about their country.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim
The man has more broken campaign promises than the last 3 presidents combined
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
Ludicrous hyperbole.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Really? You have no idea who you're banging the drum for.
That's fantastic and all, but it doesn't come close to supporting your assertion about "more broken campaign promises than the last 3 presidents combined." Your statement remains ludicrous hyperbole even with your link.

And of course, several of those "broken promises" are actually things Obama signed off on and still wants to do, but Congress wouldn't support. The President isn't an autocrat.

Like Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. He wanted to do that, he still wants to do that, but the House refused to allow it to happen. There's a difference between turning your back on a promise, and continuing to fight for it in the face of stiff opposition.

And Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. Obama ordered it closed. But he doesn't control the purse strings, and you know it.

Perhaps is the lesson is: don't make promise you can't guarantee. Ok. But I'm not gonna fault Obama or any politician for not being omnipotent. If he promises something, and fights hard for it, I'm not gonna hold it against him if he can't be successful because of concerted opposition, especially if he plans to continue to fight for it.

And when you look at the "Obameter" as a whole, he is very successful in fulfilling his promises.

Promise Kept 192 (38%)
Compromise 74 (15%)
Promise Broken 85 (17%)
Stalled 46 (9%)
In the Works 109 (21%)

That is a much more balanced picture of the Obama administration, and it looks pretty good. Does 17% Promise Broken = "more broken campaign promises than the last 3 presidents combined." I fncking doubt it very much.

Originally Posted by Shaddim
and has done more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years.
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
Is that so? Got, like, a reason for that perspective?
Once again, your examples don't come close to your ludicrous assertion. Especially since half of your examples are simply continuations of long-standing American policies.

2) Drew up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process.
Let's start with this one, since it's a distinctly Obama-era issue. And there's one answer to it that matters: Anwar al-Awlaki got what he deserved, and being American doesn't grant legal immunity to acts of war by his home country. The entire notion is fncking stupid. Turncoats get the same bullets delivered at high speed as other enemies, full stop.

If al-Awlaki was engaged in his aid to terrorism on US soil, he's simply be arrested. When he did so outside of US jurisdiction, he deserved no more and no less than what any non-citizen deserved for the same actions. Citizenship of the United States is not a license to engage in terrorism without any consequence.

Regardless, "targeted killings" of suspected terrorists began before the Obama presidency, and will continue after it. To use it as an example of "more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years" is laughable and erroneous.

I'm sure everyone would prefer it that US commandos just stormed al-Awlkai's home in Yemen, arrested him, and brought him home for trial. Of course, this puts American soldiers' lives at serious risk. Is it worth it? Not for scum like al-Awlaki.

Al-Awlaki deserved no more and no less than what Bin Laden was given: a death sentence. Neither man ever picked up a gun and pointed it at an American, but both men were dangerous terrorists who got exactly what they deserved. I have no time or regard for people complaining about "an American on a kill list" when that man is Al-Awlaki.

1) Codified indefinite detention into law.
You're right: we should just let all those guys in Gitmo go. Certainly their right to a speedy trial has been violated.

Obama had exactly three choices: let them go, keep them locked up illegally, or make their continued detention legal. Which one would you pick?

3) Proceeded with warrantless spying on American citizens.
This is a problem, you're completely right. Fortunately it is being fought in court. Voting Libertarian or something will not solve it, though.

4) Prosecuted Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets.
Who? Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about.

5) Reinterpreted the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible;
This is a long, long standing issue in American politics, starting long before Obama was even born.

6) entered and prosecuted such a war.
Libya was a success. Stop whining about it.

7) Institutionalized invasive scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports. Then codified into law that TSA agents are granted special protection from criminal prosecution or civil penalties.
Once again, you are blaming Obama for pre-Obama policies, so it doesn't prove your point.

8) Oversaw a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents can also patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots.
I'll give you that one.


9) Waged an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries, directly authorizing strikes upon civilian population centers, also without Congressional declaration.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't matter, since every nation that drone attacks are being conducted in has given approval for them to the US gov't. You see, those countries don't really like terrorists either. And the "Congressional approval" part is exactly like point 5) above. Declared or not, this issue will never be corrected without a constitutional amendment, which means it will never happen.

10) Invoked the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on their merits.
Yes, this has never happening in the history of Presidential politics, and is Obama-era only. Not.

11) Presided over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, in clear violation of California state law.
You're right.

12) Selected an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.
Right again, though it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with your assertion about "more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years."

13) And the best one, reauthorized the Patriot Act, indefinitely.
The Patriot Act is a really complex subject. A lot of the provisions are complete common sense, like the various intelligence and policing agencies should be permitted to share information. Since the Patriot Act is the only current mechanism to permit these common sense policies, it will continue to be extended. Making it "indefinite" just means it won't expire automatically. It doesn't make the more problematic issues permanent, like, forever.

So after 13 points, not a single element proves your absurd assertion that "Obama has caused more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years." There are many serious issues, I agree. But looking at things from a 50 year perspective, Obama has nothing on the Presidents who sent almost 60,000 young American boys to their deaths in Vietnam, he has nothing on the thousands of blacks, women, and gays who are legally targeted by state governments because Presidents gave tacit approval instead of getting involved, and he certainly has nothing whatsoever on the over 100,000 dead Iraqis killed in a pointless conflict supported by nothing by brazen lies by evil men. And we haven't even started on the many thousands killed by death squads, "holy warriors," and militias that were supported by the US in that time.

To say "Obama has caused more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years" is to make a fncking joke of politics for the last 50 years.

It won't save taxpayer money, because there is no taxpayer money. He picked the worst time since the 1930s to try to undertake something like this, and for no other reason than his own pride. That dipshit.
Once again, you make statements that make no sense. There is plenty of money, it just needs to be spent smarter. As regard to state spending on uninsured people in hospitals, that will simply be added to the state debt if they can't raise the revenues. You can blame Reagan for that, since he was the one who made guaranteed hospitalization for everyone a federal requirement. Jeez, those damn regulations again! You could just avoid the entire issue by ensuring people are insured, which is remarkably easy.

You should work on that then, since that's your country. Instead of barking at Americans about their country.
I can do both. I talk about the US because I don't want to see Canada's best friend flush it's future down the toilet. Best friends care about each other, you see.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
That's fantastic and all, but it doesn't come close to supporting your assertion about "more broken campaign promises than the last 3 presidents combined." Your statement remains ludicrous hyperbole even with your link.
And of course, several of those "broken promises" are actually things Obama signed off on and still wants to do, but Congress wouldn't support. The President isn't an autocrat.
He never even proposed them, that's pathetic.

Like Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. He wanted to do that, he still wants to do that, but the House refused to allow it to happen. There's a difference between turning your back on a promise, and continuing to fight for it in the face of stiff opposition.
And Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. Obama ordered it closed. But he doesn't control the purse strings, and you know it.
No, he could have closed Gitmo, he just didn't. Same goes for repealing the tax cuts, the Dems never even addressed it when they had control. Again, he never brought it up. Pathetic.

Perhaps is the lesson is: don't make promise you can't guarantee. Ok. But I'm not gonna fault Obama or any politician for not being omnipotent. If he promises something, and fights hard for it, I'm not gonna hold it against him if he can't be successful because of concerted opposition, especially if he plans to continue to fight for it.
It's his damned job, they have these things called PDAs to remind people about stuff. Only, he's much more concerned about showing his mug on TV, which he's done more than any other politician in history. Narcissistic bastard.


And when you look at the "Obameter" as a whole, he is very successful in fulfilling his promises.
Promise Kept 192 (38%)
Compromise 74 (15%)
Promise Broken 85 (17%)
Stalled 46 (9%)
In the Works 109 (21%)
38% of what he said he'd do the first term. Sad.

That is a much more balanced picture of the Obama administration, and it looks pretty good. Does 17% Promise Broken = "more broken campaign promises than the last 3 presidents combined." I fncking doubt it very much.
Once again, your examples don't come close to your ludicrous assertion. Especially since half of your examples are simply continuations of long-standing American policies.
Calm down or I will stop talking with you.

Let's start with this one, since it's a distinctly Obama-era issue. And there's one answer to it that matters: Anwar al-Awlaki got what he deserved, and being American doesn't grant legal immunity to acts of war by his home country. The entire notion is fncking stupid. Turncoats get the same bullets delivered at high speed as other enemies, full stop.

If al-Awlaki was engaged in his aid to terrorism on US soil, he's simply be arrested. When he did so outside of US jurisdiction, he deserved no more and no less than what any non-citizen deserved for the same actions. Citizenship of the United States is not a license to engage in terrorism without any consequence.
Yeah, let's throw due process out the window. Go back and read what you just posted, that's alarmingly fascist and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

You're right: we should just let all those guys in Gitmo go. Certainly their right to a speedy trial has been violated.
Obama had exactly three choices: let them go, keep them locked up illegally, or make their continued detention legal. Which one would you pick?
The one that was legal? Meaning a military tribunal for PoWs as established by military code. However, what makes this worse is it opens the door for much more direct violations against the rights of US citizens, not just foreign PoWs.

This is a problem, you're completely right. Fortunately it is being fought in court. Voting Libertarian or something will not solve it, though.
It should have never reached court a supposed "Constitutional Law Professor" should know better.

Who? Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about.
From Aljazeera, no less:

Whistleblowers' rights have also been casualty of Obama's reversals. As the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald documented, in 2008 the Obama/Biden campaign lauded federal whistleblowers who expose government wrong doing, promising to "strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal employees who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government". But now, far from protecting whistleblowers, his re-election campaign is boasting that his administration has prosecuted leakers to the press twice as many times as every other administration combined
This is a long, long standing issue in American politics, starting long before Obama was even born.
and he just came right along and made it worse, awesome.

Libya was a success. Stop whining about it.
I'll do what I like, I actually am a US citizen.

Once again, you are blaming Obama for pre-Obama policies, so it doesn't prove your point.
No, he was the one who implemented the protections for TSA agents and never bothered to stop the implementation of the scanning and pat-down requirements. He could have, he didn't.

I'm pretty sure this doesn't matter, since every nation that drone attacks are being conducted in has given approval for them to the US gov't. You see, those countries don't really like terrorists either. And the "Congressional approval" part is exactly like point 5) above. Declared or not, this issue will never be corrected without a constitutional amendment, which means it will never happen.
Still doesn't change it being yet another violation of the US Constitution, from the "Constitutional Law Professor". I guess you're more adept at violating it when you know so much about it.

Yes, this has never happening in the history of Presidential politics, and is Obama-era only. Not.
That makes it right, I suppose? Weren't we promised change in the way Washington does business? More transparency? What happened to that? It was probably easier to just go on TV.

Right again, though it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with your assertion about "more injury to civil liberties than any other president in the last 50 years."
You don't see how putting the foxes in charge of the coop causes issues with regards to civil liberties? Let alone what kind of pattern that indicates?

The Patriot Act is a really complex subject. A lot of the provisions are complete common sense, like the various intelligence and policing agencies should be permitted to share information. Since the Patriot Act is the only current mechanism to permit these common sense policies, it will continue to be extended. Making it "indefinite" just means it won't expire automatically. It doesn't make the more problematic issues permanent, like, forever.
No, it isn't complex, it's just hard to work out, but you know, that's his job. He's supposed to take on hard assignments, not just jump on the boob tube and tell everyone there's nothing behind the curtain. Everything that proved difficult, he shrank away from. You let the Patriot Act expire and actually enforce existing immigration, communication, and border law. We don't need the Patriot act, we never did.


Once again, you make statements that make no sense. There is plenty of money, it just needs to be spent smarter. As regard to state spending on uninsured people in hospitals, that will simply be added to the state debt if they can't raise the revenues. You can blame Reagan for that, since he was the one who made guaranteed hospitalization for everyone a federal requirement. Jeez, those damn regulations again! You could just avoid the entire issue by ensuring people are insured, which is remarkably easy.
It makes perfect sense, he's the idiot who decided to celebrate himself by lighting the candles on the cake, while the house is on fire. Don't foist things off on past presidents when it's so plain that he just shoved the broken healthcare bill, while ignoring the issues outlined about above, when he had the opportunity. All for his own vanity, without giving a damn to think if it was the right time for the country.

I can do both. I talk about the US because I don't want to see Canada's best friend flush it's future down the toilet. Best friends care about each other, you see.
Riiiight. It's more like the neighbors that are always peeping over the fence, watching me while I'm working at the garage.

FWIW, I don't have to make a "fncking joke of politics", it's been one longer than I've been alive.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 08:03 PM
 
@lpmckenna

Which particular president do you find worse?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 04:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post

Or, it will look like this, minus Minnesota.
That seems likely to you?

If we're guessing, I'd say the same as the 2008 map except for Indiana and North Carolina which go back to the red column, along with the single vote in Nebraska that the local GOP gerrymandered away.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@lpmckenna
Which particular president do you find worse?
You mean worse than Obama? How long of a time frame are we talking here?

Certainly Reagan and Bush Jr were much worse is every way measurable.

Obama is also measurably better than Clinton. Libya was a success while Serbia was a failure. Obama's healthcare overhaul was achieved, while Clinton's died under weaker opposition somehow. The economy was better under Clinton, but Clinton also inherited a much stronger economy to start with. Clinton is also a man of weaker character; besides his lecherous nature, Clinton is every bit the schemer that Primary Colours shows him to be. I wouldn't be surprised if birtherism was his idea, not Hillary's.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 04:35 PM
 
My apologies I wasn't more clear.

I'm talking about civil liberties.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 05:02 PM
 
Still not clear. You mean Bush Jr vs Obama?

Obama is a bit worse on one or two things, but no one's been tortured for info under Obama, and hundreds of American men haven't been stop-lossed back into war zones when they should have shrink appointments instead. (I'm sure some have been, but it would have been much worse.)

I'll get around to Shaddim's crazy post tomorrow, I've got to go to bed.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 11:20 PM
 
I mean over the last 50 years. Kennedy to now.

How do you know we haven't tortured someone? Because we said we haven't? Is that enough for cops too, or is it meaningless without accountability? If I tried to throw the cop one past you, wouldn't you call me a "boot-licker"?

I can't say I'm a fan of stop-loss, but by what rationale is using it a civil liberties issue? If you're in the reserves, you can get deployed. That's what you signed up for.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I'll get around to Shaddim's crazy post tomorrow, I've got to go to bed.
Couldn't care less. My requested ban from the PL will be in effect by morning and I've said all I care to say about this, or any political matter, on MacNN.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2012, 05:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Couldn't care less. My requested ban from the PL will be in effect by morning and I've said all I care to say about this, or any political matter, on MacNN.
For what it's worth to you Shaddim, I for one will miss your contribution. One less voice of reason here is not what this forum needed.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2012, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
For what it's worth to you Shaddim, I for one will miss your contribution. One less voice of reason here is not what this forum needed.
Agreed.

OAW
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2012, 05:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Obama is a bit worse on one or two things, but no one's been tortured for info under Obama, and hundreds of American men haven't been stop-lossed back into war zones when they should have shrink appointments instead. (I'm sure some have been, but it would have been much worse.) I'll get around to Shaddim's crazy post tomorrow, I've got to go to bed.
Ironknee might suggest another nip on the kool-aid to get rid of that nagging head ache after you've gotten proper sleep.

Of course people have been tortured for information, it's just not happening under the watchful eye of a US medical team in case it goes south. Everyone knows rendition is a much cleaner way to get this done anyway; no oversight and none of those pesky, whistle-blowing do-gooders within the ranks to get in the way.

To your ridiculous point; what has Obama done that he has somehow improved PTSD diagnoses?
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2012, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Couldn't care less. My requested ban from the PL will be in effect by morning and I've said all I care to say about this, or any political matter, on MacNN.
you banned yourself?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2012, 04:00 PM
 
Umm... you're talking to someone who's left the room.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2012, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Umm... you're talking to someone who's left the room.
he blocked himself?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2012, 07:21 PM
 
In effect.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2012, 09:00 PM
 
I was on voluntary ban for years.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2012, 04:14 AM
 
Was also on a voluntary ban pre-New Forum. Unfortunately my work computer would log me out so I could still "see" the Pol Lounge and then stupidity posted in the climate change threads would suck me back in again......hahaha
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2012, 05:37 AM
 
This amused me.

http://front.moveon.org/oh-yes-they-did-mitt-romney-mocked-in-gangnam-style-spoof/#.UGzFSgXrfql.facebook
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2012, 08:27 AM
 
You can tell its OVER for Owe-bama when they bring out BIG BIRD.

WOW!!

Earth shattering main issue.

Forget the economy,
Forget all those foreign policy disasters,
forget the fake unemployment numbers,
its about BIG BIRD!


Bwa-haa-haa-haa!!!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,