HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What is happening B4 our ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:02 AM

What is happening B4 our eyes to the mythical 2nd Term "more progressive" President Obama?

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:55 PM - Edit history (2)

BEFORE the election it was ALL about the massive "progressive muscle"
Obama was just itching to unleash on the nation, once re-elected to
a second term, about how once re-elected he'd supposedly be free
to let his progressive freak flag fly a bit more, and set things right.

Right.

Hell, Obama won't even tell my US Senator (Wyden-OR) what
qualifies a US citizen to get put onto the CIA Drone / Special Ops
"kill list" to be summarily executed without arrest, trial, due process,
and as near as anyone can tell, no opportunity to even surrender and
stand trial. ...and it's all secret: this power is from the pit of Hell.

Democrats need to unite in support of Obama to stand up to the
powerful interests that have apparently captured him, and must be holding
him hostage in the WH. The man I voted for must have a gun to his head
to be doing this shit.

Exhibit A: Now he's appointing that arrogant thug BRENNAN to head up
the CIA? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/wyden-brennan/

This is NOT what I signed up for in supporting Obama's re-election;
rather it is what I thought I was voting against: oppressive constitutionally
questionable abuse of authority against our very own citizens, following
secret guidelines unknown and unknowable "by law" to those citizens, so
US citizens may now be secretly murdered for reasons we will never be
privy to? This is ludicrous on its face.

What's the difference between this kind of "security state policy", and
how the The Mob operates?

Other Related Wired News articles:

Leaks! Torture! Drones! Obama’s CIA Pick Faces Skeptical Senators
BY SPENCER ACKERMAN AND NOAH SHACHTMAN01.09.132
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/brennan-nomination/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

If You Thought Obama’s Drone Godfather Was Powerful, Wait ‘Til He’s at the CIA
BY SPENCER ACKERMAN AND NOAH SHACHTMAN01.07.137:18 PM
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/brennan-2/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

120 replies, 5435 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply What is happening B4 our eyes to the mythical 2nd Term "more progressive" President Obama? (Original post)
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 OP
allrevvedup Jan 2013 #1
dmosh42 Jan 2013 #2
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #17
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #3
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #4
Cresent City Kid Jan 2013 #5
SidDithers Jan 2013 #6
bama_blue_dot Jan 2013 #7
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #8
dmosh42 Jan 2013 #14
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #16
amandabeech Jan 2013 #96
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #18
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #9
Enrique Jan 2013 #11
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #26
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #34
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #42
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #45
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #49
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #53
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #58
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #61
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #68
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #72
lunatica Jan 2013 #10
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #29
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #37
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #40
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #41
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #54
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #59
Romulox Jan 2013 #66
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #71
Romulox Jan 2013 #82
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #88
Romulox Jan 2013 #90
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #94
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #73
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #75
Romulox Jan 2013 #65
lunatica Jan 2013 #78
Romulox Jan 2013 #81
lunatica Jan 2013 #105
Romulox Jan 2013 #108
lunatica Jan 2013 #116
Romulox Jan 2013 #118
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #84
Romulox Jan 2013 #85
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #91
spanone Jan 2013 #12
FarCenter Jan 2013 #13
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #19
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #20
FarCenter Jan 2013 #22
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #35
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #39
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #25
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #38
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #48
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #51
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #56
FarCenter Jan 2013 #76
amandabeech Jan 2013 #97
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #99
babylonsister Jan 2013 #52
arely staircase Jan 2013 #15
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #23
LineLineReply .
ProSense Jan 2013 #27
Scurrilous Jan 2013 #21
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #24
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #43
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #46
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #57
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #64
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #79
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #55
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #28
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #44
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #47
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #63
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #69
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #74
patrice Jan 2013 #30
patrice Jan 2013 #31
patrice Jan 2013 #33
graham4anything Jan 2013 #32
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #36
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #50
jeff47 Jan 2013 #62
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #70
jeff47 Jan 2013 #77
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #80
jeff47 Jan 2013 #83
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #89
jeff47 Jan 2013 #92
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #93
jeff47 Jan 2013 #95
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #98
Romulox Jan 2013 #109
jeff47 Jan 2013 #110
Romulox Jan 2013 #111
jeff47 Jan 2013 #112
Romulox Jan 2013 #113
jeff47 Jan 2013 #114
Romulox Jan 2013 #117
brooklynite Jan 2013 #60
Dawgs Jan 2013 #67
kstewart33 Jan 2013 #86
leftstreet Jan 2013 #87
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #103
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #100
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #101
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #102
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #104
woo me with science Jan 2013 #106
ProSense Jan 2013 #107
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #119
tarheelsunc Jan 2013 #115
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #120

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:22 AM

1. Hang on there. Did you read the article?

 

Both links go to the same article and it's very very weak sauce indeed. Setting aside the legality of the agency in question the fact is that it exists and Obama has to put someone in charge of it. Believe it or not, Ackerman and Shachtman are complaining that a) Brennan is a leaker, and gives away CIA secrets, which in my view is an asset not a iability; and b) he hosted a seven hour book-signing party for his former boss Tenet:

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who is not on that committee, went even further, saying in a statement that “John Brennan has not been absolved of responsibility for the slew of high-level security leaks that have characterized this White House. This investigation needs to be resolved before his nomination can move forward.”


When Tenet released his memoir the following year, former aide Brennan feted him for a book signing at the Analysis Corporation’s McLean, Virginia campus. A May 2007 press release cited Brennan celebrating the attendance of over 600 current and former intelligence officials and their families for an event so packed that Tenet signed books “for almost seven hours.”


Almost seven hours! Quelle horreur!! Seriously these guys sound like disappointed neocons and that's mainly who's complaining about Brennan, because he's not thuggy enough for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:09 AM

2. Being more progressive was only a hope that many of us had......

But to show me that in the end, Obama is still a 'corporation' president was when Holder was signed on for another useless term. But I still support him overall compared to the wackjobs on the other side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:31 PM

17. That's pretty much how I feel as well. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:14 AM

3. The word is spelled b-e-f-o-r-e

Yeah, I went there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:42 AM

4. He's not progressive

But, he's more progressive than his opponents. McCain, Romney.

Going back to the primary, he's probably more progressive than Hillary Clinton. Maybe. It's real close.

But, yeah, he's a centrist, not a leftist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:42 AM

5. Exactly, he's a centrist

He lays it out himself in The Audacity of Hope. The republicans are so far to the right that there's a huge spectrum of views that oppose them from the left. Where Obama fits in this spectrum has been distorted by smear campaigns from the right and by wishful thinking and misguided hopes from the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:46 AM

6. Declaring his second term a failure on Jan 15, 2013...

before the fucking inauguration.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:48 AM

7. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:54 AM

8. Apparantly, Obama's 2nd term is a failure even before it starts!!

Its been 2 months since Obama won re-election and he still hasn't fixed all the problems

What was I thinking when I voted for him ??

We're doom, doomed I tell you!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:18 AM

14. The point of the post is whether Obama is a progressive, nothing about being bad or good.

He may go down in history as one of our best, or at least better than Bush. Obama would tell you himself that he looks to compromise and uses Lincoln as his model president. Lincoln was certainly very forward looking at thetime, but was pretty heavy handed at other times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:31 AM

16. Clearly we are not reading the same OP

The one I read does not compare Obama to Lincoln, but it does disparage him multiple times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:19 PM

96. I wish that he would start channeling FDR.

Our biggest problem is a long, deep recession that's starting to look like a depression. That wasn't Lincoln's problem, but it was FDR's and he tried everything to turn it around.

Don't get me wrong, Lincoln was a great man, there's no doubt about it, but he left no keys as to what to do in our present circumstances.

Sometimes I think that the President is somewhat inflexible intellectually. He has this Lincoln "thing" in his mind, and he just can't let go of it no matter what is going on around him.

Both McCain and Romney would be infinitely worse, but I think that our President could be better. And he hasn't anyone around him to push him in a better direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:37 PM

18. We're discussing APPOINTMENTS happening NOW that effect the next 4 years

also, I didn't declare Obama's 2nd term a "failure", those are your words.

I'm expressing dismay and concern at appointment of Brennan because I
care about the nation and the Democratic legacy of Obama's presidency.

You can quote me on THAT ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:57 AM

9. Your complaint presupposes he has not made these policy decisions because he

believes in them, but rather that he's fallen victim to powerful other interests. I argue that he knows perfectly well what his decisions and positions are. In this respect I admire him more, even if I do not agree with everything he does. He's not pretentious, I like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:20 AM

11. the complaint is about a myth that Obama is not responsible for

Obama has never claimed that he was going to become an unfettered progressive in his second term, but many other people have put forward that myth.

In fact, Obama has rarely, if ever, called himself a progressive. I agree with you that he has been very upfront with his centrism. But that never stopped people, on the left and on the right, from seeing an imaginary progressive Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:00 PM

26. I think there is a profound distinction between being a liberal and a progressive.

Obama is NOT a liberal. He never claimed to be. But, is he progressive? Yes! He is the most progressive president we've ever had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:12 PM

34. You have the distinctions backwards ...

PRESIDENT Obama is a liberal (i.e., believes the system is basically okay; but needs some tweaks to function better ... change the system from within); whereas, Progressive do not see the system as operating well and seek to change the paradigm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:28 PM

42. I disagree. I believe that the classic characterization of a liberal holds here as one who

believes that government can and should act as an agent of change. I don't believe that Obama subscribes to this view as much as I do. I think he is a lot more moderate: the private market should function to generate capital and economic soundness. Obama has not increased the amount of corporate regulations. In fact, he has not gutted many regulations that George W. Bush put on the books. I don't think he believes the classic liberal philosophy that the private market should face more regulations; there should be limits--or a balanced approach. When I think of liberalism, I mean ideas for how much influence and intrusion government should have.

For me, liberalism is more of a political philosophy regarding the role of government. I am a liberal because I strongly believe that government should assume a more active role in regulating the economy, and in the social rhelm, the government should preserve civil liberties and rights. It should be as active as possible in these areas. I don't view Obama as being a liberal in this sense.

Whereas when I think of progressivism, I tend to think about one's propensity towards pushing for progressive change. That change is often gradual and pragmatic. I think Obama is a pragmatist in the strictist sense of the word. I got that from him especially reading his two books. There's nothing in them that even remotely suggests that he's a liberal. However, he has a thirst for change; he believes in reform, advancement. He is progressive.

pro·gres·sive /prəˈgresiv/Adjective
Happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

Noun
A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

Synonyms
adjective. advanced - onward - forward
noun. progressist - progressionist

----

I think liberalism and progressivism are similar, but they are not the same. And I also believe that liberals like me should embrace the word "liberal" and stop hiding behind the word "progressive" because they are different. Similar but not the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:32 PM

45. Okay n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:36 PM

49. I find the discussion fascinating, but I'm a boring political scientist so what do I know. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:43 PM

53. I, too, for a time ...

studied Political Science and practiced in the area of Public Policy.

We could problem discuss this for weeks, providing citations back and forth. But tire of arguing what I believe to be distinctions without real differences, so long as we are working together to get to where we want to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:51 PM

58. Agreed. That we're on the same team is most important!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:57 PM

61. And like every team ...

We are not going to always like how we do our respective assignments, or even the play that is called; but we must run the play called and, then, when opportunity presents itself, provide a compelling argument for why and how our play can and will work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:06 PM

68. LOL!! I hope the Falcons remember this rule during this weekend's game!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:09 PM

72. LOL n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:58 AM

10. Everyone can find something to hate any US President for

It helps if you realize you aren't going to get your every heart's desire. Maybe you'll feel better, unless, of course, you want to hate.

True Progressives measure progress in where the political momentum is headed because if you want giant Progressive steps you'll always be disappointed. But if you understand that he's pushing against a giant mountain that isn't going to move anytime soon you might see how he's making incremental progress. I see it happening, so I don't have to imagine it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:05 PM

29. It is a dark irony

that our "first black president" is so abysmal on the issue
of civil rights and civil liberties.

There of course ARE things Obama does that I support too,
for example, how he's responding to the rash of mass shootings
is spot-on; and there are other examples as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:16 PM

37. Why the "dark irony" ...

are Black people (a Black President), in this democratic republic, MORE empowered to right social wrongs; than their white precessors? Or, do you just hold them to that standard, "Cuz they should know better"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:23 PM

40. Dark Irony

I would think that Black people would indeed understand the importance
of civil liberties a bit more vividly than most whites, having been "in the
trenches" themselves to secure their own liberties over the past 60+ years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:28 PM

41. Understanding ...

is one thing; empowered to act on that understanding is a complete 'nother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:46 PM

54. OBAMA MADE this decision: Nominating Brennan to head CIA

what is it about that you don't understand?

Either you are saying someone else is really in power and "making him"
do this bad thing, OR ? what exactly ARE you saying?

That Obama is some disempowered wimp?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:53 PM

59. What part about ...

the Advice and mConsent of the Senate do YOU not understand? https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/index.html

Or do you just lack a fundamental understanding of how things, political, work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:03 PM

66. The same Senate that's controlled by Democrats, you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:09 PM

71. Yes ...

that same Senate that has at least 8 Senators that seem to take great pride in its Independence from the POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #71)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:40 PM

82. Q.E.D. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:53 PM

88. What does Q.E.D. stand for? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #88)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:57 PM

90. "quod erat demonstrandum". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #90)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:13 PM

94. So you agree ...

that having Democratically affiliateds in control of the Senate, where you can count on 3-6 of those defecting (negating the control) is not a formula for Democratic success?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:12 PM

73. US Senate has a Democratic majority, no?

That's the part I don't understand: why Obama needs to play "victim" of
US Senate, when it's run by the fucking Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #73)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:18 PM

75. "Runs it" with ...

Democrats like: Bennett D-CO, Carper D-DE, Grassley R-IA, Harkin D-IA, who consistently show their independence from the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:02 PM

65. "cognitive dissonance"

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements. It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold." A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium. Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:25 PM

78. Cognitive dissonance is also a term for those who hate Obama or who

condemn all of his actions because of one or two things they don't like. Unfortunately the all or nothing type of thinking seems to be like a plague in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #78)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:39 PM

81. Nonsense. Against drone killing *before* Obama. Against drone killings *during* Obama's admin.

That is called "consistency".

Against drone killings during the admin of W, but support them now? That is called "cognitive dissonance".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:45 AM

105. Being against everything Obama does because you aren't fulfilled is called cognitive dissonance

Throwing you hands up in despair because he isn't magically fixing everything to your satisfaction may look like consistency but only to those who do it.

I despise the use of drones, but then I despise wars. All wars. I think they're a fucking plague on the planet and a form of insanity which is the biggest cognitive dissonance of all. There are people all over this planet who believe that war is OK. The US spends more than all the other nations combined on and around war, but that doesn't make the other nations sane because they're all going to war too. But that's OK because if they don't have enough weapons, we'll sell the weapons to them.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #105)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:15 AM

108. You are making more excuses for Obama's drones...there's that "cognitive dissonance", again...

It's really sad how people can delude themselves.

I despise the use of drones, but then I despise wars. All wars.


And yet here you are, making excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #108)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:11 PM

116. And you're in denial

and can't read very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #116)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM

118. I'm in denial about the need to kill people secretly with drones? Do tell!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:43 PM

84. One of my favorite handles elsewhere

is "Cognitive Dissident", so I'm familiar with the term.



Actually I'm also a Jungian familiar with "holding the tension
of opposites" which is the same thing, only turned on it's head
as an important phase in psychic alchemy, i.e. evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #84)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:45 PM

85. Just in case it wasn't clear, the term wasn't a term aimed at you, or your line of argument.

Usually, I hate being indirect, but it can take little to have a post hidden, these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #85)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:59 PM

91. cool ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:22 AM

12. where's the fuggin UNREC button...tired of this crappola

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:08 AM

13. Second term presidents are weak, and govern through the Washington process, not politics

They are not running for office again, so they are unconstrained by constituents. They have little ability to reward or punish other politicians and important players.

As a result, they are limited to exercising the formal powers of the office, and they can attempt to get things done through the bureaucratic and political processes in Washington. This requires informal leadership of political networks in Washington.

Obama is fairly disconnected, inexperienced and naive about this, and he is likely to be largely ineffective in his second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:41 PM

19. A no frills appraisal, I'd like to see more of that from posters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:42 PM

20. The man is the freaking POTUS, he can do whatever the fuck he wants

in his 2nd term, and only be concerned about his "legacy", not getting re-elected.

Or at least that's what Obama apologists were declaring before the 2012 election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:53 PM

22. Yes, whatever he wants, but not necessarily what his supporters want.

But his actions are limited by what he can get done in Washington.

"He'll sit here, and hell say, Do this! Do that! And nothing will happen. Poor Ike. It wont be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating."


Harry S. Truman about Eisenhower's election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:13 PM

35. At least Ike spoke out against the "military industrial complex"

He also did some other cool stuff, like ...

He Sponsored and Signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.

This was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. Much to Eisenhower's dismay, Congress amended the bill and critically weakened its effectiveness.

He Sponsored and Signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
This gave birth to America's interstate highway system. Eisenhower worked hard to get the bill passed and it was his favorite piece of legislation.

He Balanced the Budget, Not Just Once, But Three Times.

Despite much pressure to do otherwise, he also refused to cut taxes and raise defense spending. His fiscal policy contributed to the prosperity of the 1950's.

He Ended the Korean War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:19 PM

39. No ...

Not whatever he likes, or whatever his supporters what. No President has that power without strong support of his Congressional Caucus ... rather, I'll say without his Congressional Caucus taking the lead through submitting legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:58 PM

25. He can't do whatever he wants. The point is there are three separate and distinct

branches of this government. The president isn't all powerful. He can't just do what he wants. That's what the ODSers are always complaining about: Why hasn't he done this? Why did he do that?

Why? Because he has to work with the other two branches of government. This is not a monarchy or a dictatorship. He can't just do what he wants.

Stop projecting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:19 PM

38. I was exaggerating, I admit

My point is that he does not now need to worry about re-election,
which allows him the freedom to be a bit bolder for a solid progressive
agenda. But as many here are pointing out, Obama's not a ^^^.

However I still regard it as darkly ironic that our "first Black POTUS"
is turning out to be so abysmal on the issue of civil liberties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:35 PM

48. Can you at least wait until we're into the second term? The president seems to be

wising up to the fact that the Republicans are trying to destroy him. His push for more gun safety laws and climate change is a welcome start. Of course he'll be obstructed, but at least giving this a try and a positive start, no? Drawing down troops in Afghanistan is another issue that I am happy to say that he's doing better on.

On the civil liberties front, I am furious about the renewal of the FISA law. If there is one issue that really frustrates me, it is that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:40 PM

51. Nominations & Appointments are NOW underway

So no, I won't wait until they are already a "done deal" before speaking out about them.

Brennan is a low-life bag-man for the Bush Crime Family, who's being handed the CIA.
Do you not understand this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:50 PM

56. Sigh. o.k. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:21 PM

76. Obama is also a white POTUS

His black father was absent from his life.

His mother and grandparents who raised him were white. His half-sister is half Indonesian. He went to mostly white schools and colleges. He joined a mostly white law firm in Chicago. Most of his financial backers were white liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:23 PM

97. You have posted thoughts today that need to be put out there.

Thank you so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:27 PM

99. Why did we all cry then

at his first inauguration?

Your point is well-taken actually; and
my comment rhetorical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:41 PM

52. And you know this how? Gimme a break, unless you can prove

your crystal ball is working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:22 AM

15. so a guy you hate got elected -and then re-elected - president?

that must suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:53 PM

23. NOT what I said, nor is it how I feel

I actually tend to like Obama as a person, as he's a likable bloke.

Bit on "home and change" hook line and sinker.

And in 2012 was psyched about "moving FORWARD" into his second term,
though by then I was skeptical that he's really USE the next 4 years like
many of his more devoted apologists claimed: i.e. to be able to preside
worry-free about re-election, so he could now close Gitmo, clean up Wall
Street (really), stop fucking with Medical Marijuana patients and growers,
etc.

I voted and supported Obama in both 08 an 12, so you comment is
misplaced & inaccurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:00 PM

27. .



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:50 PM

21. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:56 PM

24. The president is not liberal, but he IS progressive. Trashing thread.

The ODSers can't even wait until the man is inaugurated before they start bashing him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:29 PM

43. Obama is setting the stage for next 4 years with APPOINTMENTS

And as a progressive supporter of Obama's re-election, I reserve the
right to criticize how he is setting the table all wrong, in a way that
is going to do real damage to civil liberties in USA.

What do you propose? That I gag myself for his first 2 years, even
though I see scumbags like Brennan being nominated? I think not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:34 PM

46. No, but you might wait until he's inaugurated to declare his

2nd term a disaster.

The Tea Party waited longer before losing its mind in Obama's first term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:51 PM

57. Obama apologist mantra: "Wait, wait, wait, wait ...

Wait until what, until he's retired? Fuck that. As a loyal Democrat, I'm
going to speak out on issues that are ON THE TABLE NOW, like nominating
this scumbag Brennan to CIA, NOT wait until it's a done deal.

Fuck waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:00 PM

64. Hummm ...

When you voted for Obama (if you did), you certainly had knowledge of who he had at the CIA prior ... what the FUCK did you expect now, that Obama was going to pick Mother Theresa to head the fucking CIA? (you seem to like that word, so I decide to add it here)?

Your post is not just about this one appointment. You claimed that Obama is not the awesome 2nd term President you expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:32 PM

79. Not Mother Theresa. --> Retired 4-Star Admiral William Fallon.

The interesting and compelling (to me at least) thing about Fallon, is he was
Patraes' superior, and hated Patraes for some very good reasons - called him
some very unflattering names, which were supposed to be off the record, but
got quoted anyway.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered
him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2007/09/12/16179/webb-fallon/

Unlike Brennan, GWBush's bagman, Fallon is a centrist who now teaches at MIT,
and has some respect for the notion of civil liberties being protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:49 PM

55. Of course you reserve the right to criticize. I'm not trying to shut you down.

I also reserve the right to respond to that criticism and I won't be shut down.

Obama will make his appointments. Let's hope they are progressive--the first two were. More importantly, let's support him when the Republicans attempt to block his progressive nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:05 PM

28. I call B.S. ...

who were all these people saying:

ALL about the massive "progressive muscle"
Obama was just itching to unleash on the nation, once re-elected to
a second term, about how once re-elected he'd supposedly be free
to let his progressive freak flag fly a bit more, and set things right.


People, myself included, said that with a 2nd term President Obama would be freed to ACT ON ANY PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION SUBMITTED by Congress. (You know, the body Cconstitutional charged with drafting and passing laws for the President to sign.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:31 PM

44. NOMINATIONS & APPOINTMENTS

to high office that will last for next 4 years.

THIS ^^^ is what is being discussed here, which are INITIATED by POTUS,
not Congress. But you knew that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:35 PM

47. Nominations initiated by ...

the POTUS, but subject to the Advice and Consent of the Senate, i.e., you have to pick someone that the other side will go for; or you are wasting your time (and capital).

What appointments have you found objectionable ... and Whom would you have appointed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:59 PM

63. The OP was/is about heading up CIA

I would nominate Valarie Plame, or better yet, retired 4-star Admiral William Fallon.

"Working on the ground in the far corners of the world, however, I came to appreciate that security today is much more about basic day-to-day existence - it's primarily about the security of the individual. Included in this, the way people relate to each other, their families, their jobs and their communities. It is broader and far more personal than traditional notions of security. And at the heart of human security is health." ~Admiral Fallon (retired)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:07 PM

69. Do you really think ...

either Plame or Fallon would be confirmed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #69)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:14 PM

74. Plame? no. Fallon? yes. ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:05 PM

30. It's being undercut by what calls itself "the Left" in bed with the Right Wing=check out gun overlap

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:07 PM

31. e.g. Why is this post receiving absolutely no comment, despite 3-4 postings:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:09 PM

33. P.S. Make that "... INTENTIONALLY undercut by what calls itself "the Left" . . . "Left" & Right are

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

fighting against Single Payer Health Care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:08 PM

32. We are about to get 100% amnesty, 95% citizenship. That is liberal enough for me

 

these other petty complaints don't even warrant a response.

as Richard Clarke said (and liberals all over loved Richard Clarke after 9-11), drones are the most humane way for warfair, and the odds are, all those people and tens of thousands more would have died anyway in a real man to man combat war.

So instead of complaining about the few collateral that died, think of the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands that have not died because of them.

Who wouldn't have wished a drone to drop on TimMcVeigh a day before the terrorist blew up Oklahoma City.Think of all those children who would have grown up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:13 PM

36. For the second time I voted for a center-right Democrat for president with my eyes wide open.

I knew exactly who and what I was voting for, and why I was making that choice. I am not delusional, or at least I try not to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:37 PM

50. Did I think Obama was Che Guevara running for 2nd term?

No.

Did I hope against hope that he's lighten up a bit (read go more
to the Left, because now he could) after election, esp. on stuff
like Medical Marijuans and civil liberties?

Yes. I admit to having that hope, which is being dashed before my
eyes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:58 PM

62. What, exactly, do you think he can do on those subjects?

Medical Marijuana - he still has to enforce the laws passed by Congress. He can't ignore our federal drug laws.

Civil Liberties - Well, this one's rather broad. But a lot of these complaints are again Congress's problem. For example, he wants to close Gitmo, and Congress stopped him.

But please spend the next two years complaining about Obama not being liberal enough. I'm sure when that results in a further-right Congress, he'll be able to do all the stuff you want him to do......oh wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #62)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:07 PM

70. "Complaining about Obama"

On med. pot, Obama himself SAID he would not interfer with state
MM laws. So he flat out lied about that, twice over (2nd term).

On civil liberties, please see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022191250

As a loyal progressive Democrat I have a responsibility to speak out
when Obama lies about stuff, and/or compromises the basic civil
liberties in the US Constitution. <-- nominating Brennan does this.

Hint: Brennan is one of the Bush Crime Family's most infamous bag men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #70)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:24 PM

77. Again, what are your specific complaints

The post you linked is again someone saying "he isn't good on civil liberties". You've yet to list something that he can actually do without Congress.

On med. pot, Obama himself SAID he would not interfer with state
MM laws. So he flat out lied about that, twice over

Again, he doesn't get to pick which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. If you want him to "not interfere", you need Congress to change the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:35 PM

80. If Obama is so helpless and slavishly duty-bound to "enforce Fed. law"

then why did he make the campaign promise to not interfere with State
MM laws in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #80)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:41 PM

83. Because he's got plenty of other ways to interfere

Such as refusing to give states all sorts of federal grant money if they enact medical marijuana laws.

What he can't do is unilaterally repeal federal drug laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #83)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:57 PM

89. What Obama COULD have done is what he said he would do

simply put a very low priority on the whole enforcement of
stupid laws at odds with State laws, and against the wishes
of US citizens, people who probably voted for him, based in
part on his statements about pretty much ignoring the state
MM programs and leaving them alone, and instead focusing
DoJ and DEA resources on REAL crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #89)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:01 PM

92. Um, no.

Again, he can't decide to ignore some laws and follow others.

Think of it this way: would you be thrilled if W had ignored laws you liked? No? Well then we need to not have presidents pick-n-choose what laws they will ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #92)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:07 PM

93. You can NOT have it BOTH ways

either he lied just to get elected, knowing he'd "be required to
enforce laws on the books"; or what? he was naive enough to
not know he'd "be required" to break his promise, and was
surprised that he couldn't pick and choose laws to enforce?

Please.

Your attempts to justify the unjustifiable in order to "have Obama's
back" is admirable, but makes no sense whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #93)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:14 PM

95. I'm not

Your attempts to justify the unjustifiable in order to "have Obama's
back" is admirable, but makes no sense whatsoever.

Given that you've made up my defense of Obama out of whole cloth, I'm kinda doubting your interpretation of his campaign promises.

You'll note I never said he told the truth while running his campaign. Yet you've decided that I did. Even though the words are still there for you to read.

As such, I really don't believe your claims of his promises. Perhaps you could link them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #95)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:25 PM

98. Here you go

For the editorial board
Obama's medial marijuana campaign promises




The following are a sampling of medical marijuana promises made by President Barack Obama when he was asking for your vote. Today, he's allowing his Justice Department to attack medical marijuana. It's an unjust episode of bait and switch. — Wayne Laugesen

Quotes from the campaign trail

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.” — November 24, 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using ... medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire

“You know, it’s really not a good use of Justice Department resources.” — responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire

“The Justice Department going after sick individuals using as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.” — July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire



Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/promises-117589-campaign-marijuana.html#ixzz2I5NDOxA3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:19 AM

109. You are 100% wrong. Nobody is forcing Obama to persecute Medical Marijuana. His predecessor

didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #109)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:31 AM

110. Except his predecessor did

There were plenty of marijuana convictions under W.

If you want to argue that the President can ignore any law he doesn't like, I really don't think you want to go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #110)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:37 AM

111. The Obama admin greatly ESCALATED such prosecutions--more in 4 years than W. in 8.

During the 31/2 years of the Obama administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), an arm of the Department of Justice (DOJ), conducted more raids on state-licensed dispensaries than the Bush administration did in eight years. The DEA hit more than 200 dispensaries, confiscated the marijuana and left a trail of wreckage in their wake. A dozen proprietors are in prison and nearly 100 more are awaiting prosecution;

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12529-medical-marijuana-reefer-madness-is-alive-and-well-in-obamaland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #111)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:39 AM

112. Because exactly the same number of dispensaries were open

Oh wait.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #112)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:42 AM

113. Now you're making excuses. Your initial argument is that Obama is *required* to prosecute.

That's obvious nonsense, so try something else, by all means!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #113)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:46 AM

114. He is required.

So was W.

If you want to claim they can ignore a law you don't like, then you are also claiming they can ignore a law you do like.

How would you feel if they took $300 billion away from national parks and spent that on defense, despite what Congress said? You would be displeased, right? Well, if you think the President gets to ignore laws on pot, then you're also saying he gets to ignore laws on spending and spend the money however he wants.

If you want to fix medical marijuana, or marijuana use in general, you need to target Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #114)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:53 PM

117. "Prosecutorial discretion" is a basic concept in the law. Moreover, the DEA (head appointed by Obama

) has the right to unilaterally reschedule cannabis.

How would you feel if they took $300 billion away from national parks and spent that on defense, despite what Congress said? You would be displeased, right? Well, if you think the President gets to ignore laws on pot, then you're also saying he gets to ignore laws on spending and spend the money however he wants.


Congress has already given the President the power to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in the way his Department of Justice pursues criminal cases. That's why NOT ONE Wall Street banker has been prosecuted for Derivative or Mortgage Fraud under his watch.

In addition, Congress has already given the President's appointees at the Drug Enforcement Administration the power to reschedule Cannabis. That's according to the law, as passed by Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

60. Fortunately, Dennis Kucinich isn't doing anything, so he can run as a REAL PROGRESSIVE in 2016...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:04 PM

67. Fuck that. All we ask is that Obama start acting like a Democrat.

Appointing Wall Street folks, members of the GOP, and Bush officials is not anywhere close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:51 PM

86. Geez, his 2nd term hasn't started yet. Let's at least wait for the inauguration.

Let's wait and see what happens before erupting into another
anti-Obama rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:53 PM

87. Yeah, plus look at the mess he inherited n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:37 PM

103. You've got it all wrong. You wet your pants pre-emptively.

Then, no matter what Obama does, you already are into a full-on hate.

That way, you don't have to think. And, if things play out differently when the second term actually arrives, you can pretend you never said anything.

DUers have been doing this for four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:27 PM

100. He's gone left on economic policy. Anyone who was paying attention knew that he wasn't

going to change in terms of being extremely aggressive in trying to kill terrorists.

Amazing how the people who constantly state how much he sucks are also the ones who cry about being disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:34 PM

101. Another DUer who is shocked and disappointed beyond belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:35 PM

102. I'm much more concerned with domestic policy.

 

I think the President has done a pretty fantastic job on foreign policy. As long as we don't end up in a war with Iran or Syria I'm good. He can drone the fuck out of al-Queda all he wants. I have no problem with that.

I'm much more concerned with jobs and the economy. That's where we still have a big problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #102)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:43 PM

104. I can agree with you mostly

as far as domestic issues go, Obama is showing signs of being
a somewhat progressive Democrat, I'll give him that .. except
of course, putting SS and Medicare "on the table" during last
debt ceiling kerfuffle with Congress was unconscionable.

Civil liberties issues, however, can only be ignored at our peril.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:57 AM

106. The corporate defense crew is here

talking about anything but Obama's actual policies.

Our party is now actively complicit in advancing the agenda of the one percent:

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

The Enemy Expatriation Act - another attack on legitimate protest and dissent like NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072450

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014342985

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348022

Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

The Pentagon's New 30,000-lb MOP Bomb Is Ready To Go
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200058

Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil/Drilling
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1896005

Obama's (Corporate) Education Reform Push is Bad Education Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221922

Obama's 'Race To The Top' Drives Nationwide Wave of School Closings, Teacher Firings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2183810

Trans Pacific Partnership is NAFTA On Steroids
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1914478

NYT slams the government for choosing not to prosecute HSBC top-bankers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965407

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid

Surely every American must realize any cuts hereinafter made to social security, Medicare, or Medicaid...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022191730

Health insurers raising rates by double digits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014358823



The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

It's well past time to give up the illusion of what we are really facing here. We are under assault by corporatists who pretend to represent us, and we had better figure out what we are going to do about it, because change is not coming from those who claim to be on our side.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to woo me with science (Reply #106)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:44 PM

119. Wowie Zowie!! Color this Frog totally blind-sided by this slowly boiling water. ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:48 AM

115. I think a lot of people here are buying into the right wing's "he's a Marxist/Socialist" crap

I guess because they make the untrue claims that he's an extremely left politician, some Democrats are believing that. But he's never been very far left, he's center-left at best. I support him as our President, even if I don't agree with all of his decisions, because he is leading us to a better place and he's worlds better than either McCain or Rmoney would have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #115)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:49 PM

120. Perhaps

but most reliable sources, ones I trust at least, claim that on several key issues of
civil liberties, free speech, freedom of assembly, privacy, etc. that Obama is actually
WAY worse than GWBush was.

This is the proverbial slowly heating water that us frogs (anyone who gives a rats ass
about civil liberties, as declared by the US Constitution) are getting cooked by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread