Are there any Obamatards left?

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Whether Obama survives the next election or not is going to depend almost entirely on how well the GOP can get their shit together. There's a groundswell right now that they really need to capitalize on and organize into something coherent. If they can't do it (and I don't have much confidence they can), Obama will skate by no matter how badly he does.

what groundswell? you think ron paul end the fed rallies are the groundswell that is going to rally the american people? or is it neocons whining about torture memos?

they aren't going to be much of a party until they can come up with something besides "not what the democrats are doing."

[Thaniel Buckner]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Since when does our Constitution speak to the rights of foreigners?

since article six paragraph 2. aren't you a lawyer?

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Corganist

"Let's all sit around and agree about how bad America sucks!" The solution to coming on too strong is not to go the exact opposite route. It's not like it all averages out in the end or something.

Xenophobic hyperbole.

Somehow I doubt that. Even if convictions do somehow "roll in," I doubt that there will be many thrilled about it. Whatever mechanism gets put in place by necessity is going to be less than a full fledged American courtroom trial. Thus, there will always be people who will challenge the validity of any conviction. And at the same time, you're going to have a lot of "not in my back yard" types who won't want these guys in their courts or their prisons.

I just love how you always argue the most morally reprehensible causes. It's really quite amazing.

Who cares about upholding the constitution and human rights in the case of "foreigners" they aren't human, right?

[Joe]

i agree with ryan even though i hate to admit it

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

what groundswell? you think ron paul end the fed rallies are the groundswell that is going to rally the american people?

I think the visibility of the tea party/ron paul wing of the right recently might be indicative of a broader current, that's all. The loony tip of a growing iceberg, perhaps. There are a lot of grumbling disaffected people on the right at the moment.

But like I said, the GOP would really have to mold it all into something coherent and not loony sounding in order to capitalize on it. And I'm not sure they have either the inclination to run with it, or the ability to run with it even if they were inclined to. At this point, they'd be more likely candidates to be sunk by the iceberg of disaffected right wingers than Obama would.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Thaniel Buckner

since article six paragraph 2. aren't you a lawyer?

Oh please. No one is saying that these guys deserve trials in U.S. courts because it's dictated by the Supremecy Clause. We're not talking about merely adhering to treaties here. We've gone above and beyond that.

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I just love how you always argue the most morally reprehensible causes. It's really quite amazing.

Who cares about upholding the constitution and human rights in the case of "foreigners" they aren't human, right?

Who said anything about denying foreigners human rights? It's not like the US Constitution is the lowest baseline level of human rights in the world. It's quite the opposite. We can uphold our constitution and respect human rights without offering up to hostile outsiders the benefits of the justice system available to US citizens. We shouldn't have to treat a foreigner with no ties to the US other than being accused of acts of war against it the same way we would some poor schlub U.S. citizen caught selling some pot, but that's damn near where we're headed.

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I think the visibility of the tea party/ron paul wing of the right recently might be indicative of a broader current, that's all. The loony tip of a growing iceberg, perhaps. There are a lot of grumbling disaffected people on the right at the moment.

but the grumblers make up the core repub base that they have of 30% or whatever that isn't going to do it any more. the tea party thing was about people who believe every right wing email forward about obama being a non-american muslim who hates our country getting together in one place. their argument of "taxed enough already" kind of doesn't make much sense when you consider the fact almost all of them just got a tax cut.

given this recent finding:

"The Gallup survey found that 48 percent of respondents felt that federal income tax level they pay is about right. A year ago that level was at 42 percent. Forty-six percent said their taxes were too high (compared to 52 percent a year ago) and 3 percent said they were too low (2 percent last year)."

i don't know how more people being happy with their taxation level under Obama than under Bush adds up for something for the right to sell here.

[Nimrod's Son]

is gallup still doing those polls after presidents gore and kerry? actually they just probably call the same houses

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Corganist

But like I said, the GOP would really have to mold it all into something coherent and not loony sounding in order to capitalize on it. And I'm not sure they have either the inclination to run with it, or the ability to run with it even if they were inclined to. At this point, they'd be more likely candidates to be sunk by the iceberg of disaffected right wingers than Obama would.

as for this, I'd have to say that I agree for the most part. I think the Reagan coalition GOP days are completely past. the fractures are getting deep in the party, but we never end up with 3 parties so who knows what happens next.

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

is gallup still doing those polls after presidents gore and kerry? actually they just probably call the same houses

so you disagree with their finding or....

[Thaniel Buckner]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Oh please. No one is saying that these guys deserve trials in U.S. courts because it's dictated by the Supremecy Clause. We're not talking about merely adhering to treaties here. We've gone above and beyond that.

sorry but the question you asked was "Since when does our Constitution speak to the rights of foreigners?" And treaties speak to the rights of non citizens. now i understand that trying these detainees in our domestic courts isn't exactly promised to them by any sort of treaties we've signed, but don't you think the united states, with its moral superiority and limitless faith in its own judicial system, should offer the opportunity for true justice to its adversaries?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

but the grumblers make up the core repub base that they have of 30% or whatever that isn't going to do it any more. the tea party thing was about people who believe every right wing email forward about obama being a non-american muslim who hates our country getting together in one place. their argument of "taxed enough already" kind of doesn't make much sense when you consider the fact almost all of them just got a tax cut.

I think you paint with an awfully broad brush here. I don't want to vouch for the tea party movement, because it is fringe, but this idea that it's fringe because it only attracted all the worst right-wing stereotypes is pretty off base from what I've seen. There were nuts and extremists galore, sure, but I think you make a big assumption if you assume they are the extent of the grumbling masses.

The one thing you have to take note of from the tea parties is that people who are not traditionally known to take to the streets are taking to the streets for some reason. Conservatives aren't like liberals. They don't base the weight of their discontent on how many people show up to a protest. They usually just piss and moan amongst themselves, and when everybody gets pissing and moaning about the same things, somebody acts on it. So if you're seeing fringe elements of the right driven to outright public demonstration, you can be rest assured that a lot of pissing and moaning is going on in the more "respectable" parts of the right.

There's more going on than a bunch of rubes with misspelled signs.

i don't know how more people being happy with their taxation level under Obama than under Bush adds up for something for the right to sell here.

The issue isn't taxes. It's what's being done with them. People concerned with the expansion of big government aren't going to be simply placated with the knowledge that their tax rate isn't breaking them.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

is gallup still doing those polls after presidents gore and kerry? actually they just probably call the same houses

well their polls measure the popular vote, so they got 2000 right. and 2008.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Thaniel Buckner

sorry but the question you asked was "Since when does our Constitution speak to the rights of foreigners?" And treaties speak to the rights of non citizens.

I suppose I of all people can't argue with you. In a strict, technical sense you're right. And I know I've hung my arguments on more than a few techicalities myself from time to time.

So yes, the Constitution does speak to the rights of foreigners at least to the extent that their rights are affected by treaties they sign with the US. Regardless, I'm not convinced that anyone was really trying to apply that concept here.

now i understand that trying these detainees in our domestic courts isn't exactly promised to them by any sort of treaties we've signed, but don't you think the united states, with its moral superiority and limitless faith in its own judicial system, should offer the opportunity for true justice to its adversaries?

I just don't see a good way out. Either these guys get the full American justice experience...and most likely get released, regardless of guilt, because of all the evidentiary and procedural protections endemic to American courts that would never allow much of the evidence gathered against these guys to see the light of day.

Or we game the system a little bit. A nip here, a tuck there. Make an effort to kinda gloss over some of those evidentiary and procedural quandaries involved in order to secure some convictions against these guys. Basically we end up with show trials...in a United States Courtroom. I don't see how it's worth it.

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Corganist

The issue isn't taxes. It's what's being done with them. People concerned with the expansion of big government aren't going to be simply placated with the knowledge that their tax rate isn't breaking them.

well that's a better divide to exploit i suppose. with the 2008 exit poll that cnn had 51% of people saying the government to do more (to solve problems) and 43% saying they are doing too much. they're starting out from a minority position on the issue but i suppose they could succeed in swinging it the other way if they have a good argument. but Jindal tried to frame that argument for the American people and fell on his face, so it's going to take either making better points or a better salesman.

[Trotskilicious]

lol bobby jindal

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

so you disagree with their finding or....

i just don't put much stock at all in it or its veracity

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

well that's a better divide to exploit i suppose. with the 2008 exit poll that cnn had 51% of people saying the government to do more (to solve problems) and 43% saying they are doing too much. they're starting out from a minority position on the issue but i suppose they could succeed in swinging it the other way if they have a good argument. but Jindal tried to frame that argument for the American people and fell on his face, so it's going to take either making better points or a better salesman.

Jindal is a terrible salesman.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

i just don't put much stock at all in it or its veracity

on what basis

[ryan patrick]

in new AP Poll Right Track/Wrong Track has went into Right Track territory for the first time since Jan. '04.

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

i just don't put much stock at all in it or its veracity

Pew Poll (MOE 3%) has Obama's Tax Policy approval at 50% to 33% disapproval. young people break 56/30, and 30-49 break 54/29, so I'm not sure that tax policy is the wedge issue to get under 50's back (and even over-50's break in favor of Obama's tax policy just not as heavily).

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

on what basis

on the basis of not putting much stock in polls and that they're often completely wrong

[Trotskilicious]

Um, find some irrefutable proof about how wrong polls OFTEN are.

for example, finding something that says one poll was wrong still doesn't prove your point.

p.s. you're a moron, stop trying to be smart.

[Nimrod's Son]

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png AP – President Barack Obama makes an opening statement during a prime time news conference in the East Room …


By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 29, 8:29 pm ET
WASHINGTON – "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was partly him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped the latest in a string of precipitously out-of-balance budgets.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.
At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
A look at some of his claims Wednesday:
OBAMA: "We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs." — from news conference.
THE FACTS: This assertion is flawed on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama's stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses.
But Obama's number is murky, at best. The White House has not yet announced how it intends to count jobs created by the stimulus bill. Obama's number is based on a job-counting formula that his economists have developed but have not made public. Until that formula is announced — probably in the coming week or so — there's no way to assess its accuracy.
Whatever the formula, economists who study job creation say it will require some creative math. That's because Obama has lumped "jobs saved" in with "jobs created." Even economists for organizations that stand to benefit from the stimulus concede it probably is impossible to estimate saved jobs because that would require calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.
___
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. ... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." — in Missouri.
THE FACTS:
Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, controlled the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited. A Republican president, George W. Bush, had a role, too: He signed the legislation.
Obama supported the emergency bailout package in Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
___
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." — in Missouri.
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
___
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." — in Missouri.
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.
Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate — for a total of 12.4 percent — on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.
Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
___
OBAMA: "My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we'll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier."
THE FACTS: Obama has indeed expressed hope for a health care plan that has support from Democrats and Republicans. But his Democratic allies in Congress have just made that harder. The budget plan written by the Democrats gives them the option of denying Republicans the normal right to block health care with a Senate filibuster. The filibuster tactic requires 60 votes to overcome, making it the GOP's main weapon to ensure a bipartisan outcome. The rules set by the budget mean that majority Democrats could potentially pass health care legislation without any Republican votes, sacrificing bipartisanship to achieve their goals.
___
Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo, Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

gitmo being shut down is a wonderful thing, all we're doing is actually charging these guys with crimes and putting them in maximum security prisons thereby respecting our constitution and reassuming moral high ground.

Or..not.

washingtonpost.com
Obama Set to Revive Military Commissions

The Obama administration is preparing to revive the system of military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections, government officials said.

The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The military commissions have allowed the trial of terrorism suspects in a setting that favors the government and protects classified information, but they were sharply criticized during the administration of President George W. Bush. "By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure," then-candidate Barack Obama said in June 2008.

In one of its first acts, the Obama administration obtained a 120-day suspension of the military commissions; that will expire May 20. Human rights groups had interpreted the suspension as the death knell for military commissions and expected the transfer of cases to military courts martial or federal courts.
ad_icon

Officials said yesterday that the Obama administration will seek a 90-day extension of the suspension as early as next week. It would subsequently restart the commissions on American soil, probably at military bases, according to a lawyer briefed on the plan.

"This is an extraordinary development, and it's going to tarnish the image of American justice again," said Tom Parker, a counterterrorism specialist at Amnesty International.

A White House official said no final decision has been made, and one source involved in the discussions said the plan awaits Obama's approval.

The administration's extension would allow it to meet a requirement to provide Congress with 60 days' notice of any rule changes in the way the commissions function, officials said. Congress established the commissions in 2006 after the Supreme Court struck down a system of military tribunals created by the Bush administration.

The Obama administration's plan to reinstate the commissions with modifications reflects the fear that some cases would fail in federal courts or in standard military legal settings.

"It looks a lot more difficult now than it did on Jan. 20," said one government official.

Civil liberties advocates, who insist that federal courts can handle terrorism cases, vowed to challenge any new process.

"We'll litigate this before they can proceed, absolutely," said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Any effort to tinker with military commissions would be an enormous mistake. There is no way to fix a flawed process that has not rendered justice."

----

So its still a sham, just a smidge less of one. Cool.

[Nimrod's Son]

His promise was to "shut down Guantanamo." So he can do that and set up Gitmolite and still claim victory.

[Trotskilicious]

c'est la vie

[Mayfuck]

Obama is kind of a pussy.

[Trotskilicious]

yeah he is

[Nimrod's Son]

more gitmo stuff. also you have to love the second half of the article. he's a dad! his kids love him! you should LOVE HIM!

Barack Obama U-turn over military terror trials | Mail Online


Barack Obama U-turn over military terror trials


By David Gardner
Last updated at 10:29 PM on 15th May 2009

• Comments (10)
• Add to My Stories

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...82_233x423.jpg New rules: Obama is reviving the tribunal system with amendments


President Obama has been accused of a major policy U-turn after he decided to restore the controversial military commissions set up by George Bush to prosecute terror suspects.
The surprise White House announcement reversed his campaign pledge to rely on the conventional court system.
The move was last night criticised by human rights groups, who believed Mr Obama intended to dismantle the terror tribunals after calling them 'an enormous failure' during last year's presidential campaign.
It was the president's second U-turn this week, after he changed his mind and pledged to try and block the court-ordered release of photographs showing U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners.
In one of his first acts as president, Mr Obama obtained a 120-day suspension of the military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Last night, he was expected to ask for an additional 120-day delay in nine pending cases to revamp the trials.
Mr Obama is asking Congress to expand the rights of defendants to ban evidence gained from torture or cruel treatment, limit the use of hearsay and give detainees more rights to pick their own lawyers. He also wants some defendants to face trial in civil courts.
But aides said the president now plans to retain the Bush administration's military commissions to try a smaller number of around 20 terror suspects.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...73_468x319.jpg High security: Guards stand on either side of a line-up of Guantanamo detainees, in white, to perform a search for unauthorized items at the detention facility


The White House insisted that Mr Obama had not gone back on his word. Aides maintained the president 'never promised to abolish' military tribunals. He 'has always envisioned a role for commissions, properly constituted,' added an official. But critics said Mr Obama repeatedly called for change.
'Everyone knows the military commissions have been a dismal failure,' said Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First.
'The results of the cases will be suspect around the world. It is a tragic mistake to continue them,' he added.
Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said: 'It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment.'

Even with the additional rights being proposed, defendants would not get the same protection at a military hearing as they would under the civilian system. Hearsay evidence, for example, is banned in American courts.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...02_224x322.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...12_224x322.jpg


Detainees: Ramzi Binalshibh (left) and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are among detainees at Guantanamo Bay charged with murder and war crimes in connection with the Sept. 11 terror attacks



Under the Bush administration tribunals, hearsay testimony was allowed unless a defendant could prove it unreliable. Mr Obama plans to shift the burden onto the prosecution.
The Bush tribunals won three convictions in eight years, with charges pending against 21 suspects. Trial plans for more than 200 other Guantanamo detainees are still undecided. Some 241 inmates remain in Guantanamo.
The president's decision came as he faces increasing pressure to come up with a plan for dealing with detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which he has promised to close by next January.
Mr Obama was already under fire for his decision to bow to the advice of his military chiefs and block the release of photos detailing the U.S. abuse of prisoners.
After initially saying he would go along with a court order to release the pictures, he then said he was 'uncomfortable' with the decision as it could put U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at more risk.
'DADDY'S HOME': THRILLED SASHA GREETS OBAMA
Like many little girls, Sasha Obama looked thrilled when her father returned home from a day at the office.

Of course, most parents don't live in the White House and complete their commute in a helicopter.
The president's younger girl, seven, waved enthusiastically as Mr Obama strode down the steps of the chopper.

He smiled broadly, and waved back.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...87_224x423.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...89_224x423.jpg




Waiting game: Sasha Obama stands on a White House veranda waiting for her father... and beams and waves when she sees him


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...15_468x651.jpg The President looked equally happy to see his youngest daughter

[Trotskilicious]

You know the Daily Mail is basically the New York Post, right.