Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: If you feel about Obama as I do -

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 27, 2012, 8:11 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all. You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.
A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.
The right’s core case is that Obama has governed as a radical leftist attempting a “fundamental transformation” of the American way of life. Mitt Romney accuses the president of making the recession worse, of wanting to turn America into a European welfare state, of not believing in opportunity or free enterprise, of having no understanding of the real economy, and of apologizing for America and appeasing our enemies. According to Romney, Obama is a mortal threat to “the soul” of America and an empty suit who couldn’t run a business, let alone a country.
Leave aside the internal incoherence—how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone? None of this is even faintly connected to reality—and the record proves it. On the economy, the facts are these. When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course.

But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion.

And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t. The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4%, not 9%. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.
You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Thank you for this impassioned and informed argument for Obama. I have also strongly advocated that people in this movement vote for Obama in the next election. My reasons are these.

  1. If the Republicans win, then I think this movement will be simply crushed. They are on record as opposing this movement, and if they win the same thing will happen that happened in the sixties, with the election of Nixon. Kent State, among other actions during the Nixon administration, showed that they were willing to use whatever level of force was necessary to crush dissent. There would be nothing to prevent them from doing it again.

  2. Obama being our first black president, his election has been a terribly needed balm to the sore of race relations in this country, and as such brings the American people together, rather than dividing us even further.

  3. Although Obamn if far to the right of the kind of president I would wish for, he is also clearly far to the left of both of his opponents. The Republican strategy will be to first select Mitt Romney, and than paint him as a moderate - don't buy it. He's the hand picked representative of the 1%.

  4. We really don't know what kind of policys Obama would push for if he could. Can we have already forgotten the Battle Royale he encountered over his modest health care reform legislation? The truth is that the Republicans still exert far more influence in the beltway than Obama does.

In conclusion, I can only say that firstly we need to kick the Republicans and the 'Blue Dog," which might as well be the "Dirty Dog" Democrats the hell out of power. That is just the necessary starting point for taking back our democracy. If we can't accomplish that, than I believe the established powers will be able to crush our efforts at reform. If we can do this however, then the field will be open for reform, and if we are in there for the long haul we will be able to achieve it.

But make no mistake - all is predicated on the outcome of the next election, especially in the Senate, where Democrats are forced to defend 5 times as many seats as Republicans.

Are you tired of gridlock? I sure as hell am!!!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Totally agree! Pardon my picking nits! I must admit - I don't like the term "gridlock".
It implies a shared responsibility for not getting anything done and letting our country suffer. Except for the blue dogs - that should be sent to the pound -
99% of the problem is completely in the wallets of the Rs

check out the new Bill Press book The Obama Hate Machine

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

You are right about the word "gidlock." Our language is poisoned with words and phrases created in places like The Heritage Foundation, to confuse and manipulate people. I try to avoid those words as best I can, but inevitably a few slip through, because they are so entrenched in the veracular.

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 6 years ago

Ok trying again. Thank you and i completely agree, there is NO other chance to create an environment where ows can thrive, and to get the work done we need to do. Appreciate the kind words.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

No, thank you for helping us to look reality square in the face. That is where we must, at all times, be. If we dellude ourselves about where we stand at any point in this process we will be in trouble. Our adversaries can afford to buy the best political minds in their attempts to derail us.

[-] 1 points by HapteMikael (162) 6 years ago

The Irony is painful.


[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

You too.

Yes, I agree completely about an environment where Occupy can thrive, and those who think the Repubs don't stand a chance in the next election haven't been around as long as I have. Let's face it, owning practically everything gives a political party a certain advantage.

[-] 0 points by HapteMikael (162) 6 years ago

lol, been away from this forum for a while, and I come back to this?

Are you serious?

1- R's and D's are on the same fascist team, if you can't see that... Well, you can't fix stupid.

2- Most retarded thing I have ever read here. Clearly you don't know the first thing about "race relations" in the US. Half-African prez = Better race relations... Nice causality link there, is that something like whenever the rooster crows, the sun rises? Seriously, lolwut?

3- False dichotomy. But it's nice to know people STILL don't mind voting for evil, as long as it's the "Lesser". Grow a pair clown, you don't have to choose between fascist (R) or Fascist (D).

4- We don't? I do because I have been paying attention for the last four years. The Healthcare "reform" you refer to is a travesty, and just another corporate welfare check. NDAA, secret drone operations, mercenary armies, continued use of secret torture dungeons etc... But lemme guess, the baddy "R's" made him do it? If that's the case O's either a puppet (duh), ineffectual(double duh), or a liar (triple duh, also 100% indisputable). I'll pass on all of them thanks.

"That is just the necessary starting point for taking back our democracy. " trololololoool. the US has NEVER had a Democracy, and we never will. It's pretty scary how delusional people are. Your vote doesn't matter, wake the fuck up, or don't. Keep playing the blatantly rigged game b/c you (like many) are either too afraid to face the truth, or too brainwashed to see through the OBVIOUS propaganda and lies.

Sry for the truculence, but the fantasy world you and many on the so called "left" is fucking disgusting. Enjoy defending, advocating, and "voting" for a piece of shit torturer and war criminal.


[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Answers, Haptemickel . . answers is what we're after. We know all about the questions.

[-] 2 points by MaryS (678) 6 years ago

Thanks, bensdad. Here is the original article. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html. I also like this blog entry by Frank Schaeffer, "President Obama will be Vindicated." (Let's hope.) http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2012/02/president-obama-will-be-vindicated.html Frank is an interesting guy, he grew up in a fundamentalist environment and now seems to spend nearly every waking minute calling out the Republicans on their crap. I love this interview with him on CNN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1G1qdvIAI.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Frank Schaeffer is a gem
He's been on Maddow many times He's the only public person I've ever heard categorically say
"I am sorry" without all of the "if i've offended" crap I would love to see him and cotton mather santorum debate

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 6 years ago

Oh yeah, there would be some floor mopping, lol. He's a little intense but he tells it like it is.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago


The great conservative bugaboo, Obamacare, is also far more moderate than its critics have claimed. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush’s unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did. It is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have a public option; it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right. It is not, as Romney insists, a one-model, top-down prescription. Like Obama’s Race to the Top education initiative, it sets standards, grants incentives, and then allows individual states to experiment. Embedded in it are also a slew of cost-reduction pilot schemes to slow health-care spending. On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.
From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.
They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.
This is where the left is truly deluded. By misunderstanding Obama’s strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, they have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game. He did this with his own party over health-care reform. He has done it with the Republicans over the debt. He has done it with the Israeli government over stopping the settlements on the West Bank—and with the Iranian regime, by not playing into their hands during the Green Revolution, even as they gunned innocents down in the streets. Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.
Sure, Obama cannot regain the extraordinary promise of 2008. We’ve already elected the nation’s first black president and replaced a tongue-tied dauphin with a man of peerless eloquence. And he has certainly failed to end Washington’s brutal ideological polarization, as he pledged to do. But most Americans in polls rightly see him as less culpable for this impasse than the GOP. And it is this Republican intransigence—from the 2009 declaration by Rush Limbaugh that he wants Obama “to fail” to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s admission that his primary objective is denying Obama a second term—that has been truly responsible for the deadlock. And the only way out of that deadlock is an electoral rout of the GOP, since the language of victory and defeat seems to be the only thing it understands.
If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008. And I feel confident that sooner rather than later, the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started.

[-] 0 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 6 years ago

Funny you should mention McConnell. You should research McConnell's earmarks from Obama. McConnell's earmarks that were requested by Obama are intriguing: $247,731,000.00 in 2009 and $169,976,000.00 for 2010 (2009 earmarks from Obama were $35,628,000.00 more than what McConnell got from GeeWBush in 2008). One earmark caught my attention and it's not exactly the infamous bridge-to-nowhere but $12,000,000.00 for an access road sure made me wonder. I really wanted to know what a $12,000,000.00 access road would entail so I looked into it. It's a road to a chemical munitions destruction facility at Blue Grass Depot [is land "characterized by open fields and rolling hills with gentle slopes"] so it's not at all difficult terrain for a road. The proposed plan gave three options for this "access road" and some include existing roads. The plan doesn't say how long the road is in options 1 and 2, but it is "approximately 1.5 miles" in option 3 (p 98). I realize they need the road but I must be missing something because eight million dollars a mile seems excessive. I guess that's not true if it's going in your pocket but WE ARE BROKE!

sources- 'Don't Fall for Debt Default Distraction du jour' http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/08/dont-fall-for-debt-default-distraction.html

Dem and GOP, they are the Genoveces and Gambinos... UniParty Incorporated playing the good cop-bad cop routine that has worked too well to divide The People... divide and conquer. The 1% get bailouts, TARP and frauds on Wall Street get NPAs (Non-Prosecution-Agreements)... we get arrested for using a tarp (OWS in Houston).

We need UNITY as it is them against us. 99% of DC represents 1% of people. But the best way to look at it is, WE OUTNUMBER THEM.
It really is a War on People. The War on People is a War on You http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/11/war-on-people-is-war-on-you.html

Bensdad, I sincerely hope you'll read my take on Obama's record, especially with regard to his role in the Gulf situation. Would you overlook the provisions in NDAA 2012 if Dubbya had signed it? Or if Dubbya had said it's safe to eat [poisoned] food and swim in [toxic] water? To promote any action that endangers the lives of The People he is trusted to protect is inexcusable. It deeply reflects on his character... If you are a man of character, and I think you are, then you will honestly consider the facts I have presented/ Less evil is really just a more effective evil if we accept it. We the People need to be honest with ourselves and not hang onto to hope that's gone and change for the worse.
The Republicans can't decide who they like, and Obama has abandoned us all, so isn't this a time for us to get out of the false two-party paradigm? Rigged elections should be our focus... not debating Fraud A or Fraud B.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

So . . . you think in the next election we should let the Republican wolf in the door? What do you think about the next election? . . . That it's just going to evaporate, and we won't have to live with the outcome? In other words, what do you have to say about the next election?

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 6 years ago

SayNo, I have never seen a rant like this in my life and I find it as scary as the scary things you're ranting about. I'm sorry but to blame all of that on one man shows an unfathomable lack of perspective.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 6 years ago

Why do people insist on rewarding bad behavior?There is no lesser of two evils.Why play and waste our time on either establishment politician?I go to the race track.If I do not like any horses in the race I sit that race out.Why invest in a proven Bad return.

[-] 0 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 6 years ago

I voted for Obama last time, but now that Obama has continued EVERY LOUSY Dubbya policy, and war, plus Libya and FIVE more drone wars... Obama has proven to work FOR globalist and AGAINST The People, I WILL NOT BE FOOLED AGAIN!


It's pretty telling when the ACLU has to file a lawsuit to get info about the US Citizen Obama killed without charge or trial... 'Mr Transparency' yeah, right.

Perhaps the author of this page does not realize Obama signed NDAA 2012 or what that means, but it means, Your Allotted Amount of Freedom Has Expired!- http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/your-allotted-amount-of-freedom-has.html

How many CEOs and Lobbyists has Obama appointed? I stopped counting at 50!

How many drone wars has Obama added? Five, Six... Uganda was EIGHT

The Gulf of Mexico was being sprayed with POISON by BP and our own government when Obama gave you his "personal assurance the Gulf was safe". Who told YOU to swim in POISON? Who told you to eat POISON? Obama, that's who. WHO DOES THAT?!?! WHAT KIND OF PERSON DOES THAT?! WHAT KIND OF LEADER POISONS MILLIONS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE... and ENDANGERS THE WORLD?! Protecting BP... a FOREIGN corporation, WE ARE PEOPLE and our leader is supposed to work for us! PLEASE Get the FACTS about the POISONING OF AMERICANS by BP and GOV and GOV's cover-up for BP - The Gulf of Mexico is NOT Safe, IT IS DYING! http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/02/gulf-of-mexico-is-not-safe-it-is-dying.html

I could go on and on, but I really shouldn't have to go past KILL ORDERS ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, OR the FACT Obama essentially said 'LET THEM EAT POISON". SERIOUSLY, People need to WAKE UP to REALITY and stop being an obamazombie... we didn't get candidate Obama, we got Bush 3 and that is not the hope and change I voted for!!! He lost his shoes for workers but he found a pen to SIGN AWAY YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!!


MUST WATCH VIDEO, Look what you CHOOSE to bequeath to OUR Children IF you choose Obama [or a GOP equivalent].!
"DAMN IT PEOPLE DON'T YOU GET IT??? Part 12, Kill Orders!" http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2012/02/damn-it-people-dont-you-get-it-part-12.html ^^^^^^^ 2008 slogan was "It's the economy, stupid"... Wake up, it is 2012 and It is LIBERTY, stupid!!!
And NO, I'm not suggesting the GOP equivalent... THINK. RESEARCH... AND YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER!

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Andrew Sulliven is a conservative commentator who can see things beyond the black and white.
Many of your anti-Obama points are not illegitimate but you won't acknowledge that he is not a dictator. You rage against the NDAA like a fanatic. The NDAA is 5000 pages - you ( and I ) object to maybe 100 words.
You accuse him of saying "LET THEM EAT POISON"
can you cite the speech or document he wrote?

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

I've been pretty hard on Obama, but I do agree with some of your points up there.

On the NDAA I don't though, he had a presidential veto which would have got rid of those 100 words in a hurry, and he chose to sign the thing on new years eve instead. If I recall his veto threat had more to do with forcing republicans to give more power to indefinitely detain people to the white house. Not because he was actually concerned about indefinite detention itself.

And this man is a constitutional lawyer, he knows better. Either he is a deceptive prick, or he was told by a higher up to sign it "or else."

Given how upset defense contractors would have been if he vetoed it, I would guess that they would have all been lobbying hard for Republicans to remove those 100 words and resubmit the thing before the end of the day. Republicans would never let a fat payout for their defense lobbyists die over any 100 words; he ought know that, and if he doesn't I'm sure his advisers certainly do.

There is no excuse for not vetoing that piece of legislation; and IMO it is blatantly obvious it is an insurance policy for social unrest passed in the wake of the OWS protests.

[-] 0 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 6 years ago

Alexrai, There was no 'presidential veto' on NDAA 2012, it was signed 12/31/2011 and will go into effect in a few days (March 3rd I believe). Obama did write a Presidential Signing Statement, however, they have NO LEGAL EFFECT. Presidential signing statements are presidential propaganda... meaningless words as they have no legal effect, but a tool to trick people into believing it's a 'veto'... the only way to veto is to veto the entire bill. Incidentally, he said he'd never use them, but he said a lot of things (lost his shoes when it came time to walk with workers but found a pen to sign away our Bill of Rights)

Obama's Signing Statement said he "signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists..."

SO yes, he knows it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The President has a duty not to sign a law which in a given circumstance would be unconstitutional, because the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. (Article II, Section 1).

Obama says one thing and does another so don't expect too much... or perhaps we should anticipate more US citizens to be indefinitely detained as Obama has gone back on his word too many times. You may want to listen to Obama's 2009 speech about PREVENTATIVE indefinite detention. Considering this, maybe it was his idea to indefinitely detain Americans w/o charge/trial/attorney or day in court. He is the one ordering assassinations of US citizens WITHOUT charge etc... The whole thing is absurd but this part really gets me, Obama Says -

"In our Constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.  If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.  So going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution"--   

First of all, prolonged detention could never fit in to OUR Constitutional system, especially preventative. Any kind of "legal regime" that is "appropriate" for prolonged detention is more appropriate for a totalitarian regime. here is the 2009 speech - http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-announces-detaining-americans-for.html

sources here- http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/your-allotted-amount-of-freedom-has.html Presidential Signing Statements - Law Library of Congress (Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statements.php ) "Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement."

The mindset of the US electorate needs to change from accusing third party voters of ‘wasting their votes’ to accusing Democratic Party and Republican Party voters of wasting their votes.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Maybe I wasn't completely clear, but I was complaining mostly because I thought he should have used a veto. The signing statement was just a meaningless PR move.

I completely agree with your post though, its absolutely disgraceful that thing actually got signed, especially by a constitutional law professor of all people.

[-] 0 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 6 years ago

First of all, to Bensdad and Alexrai, It's not just Obama, but I had such hope with him and he sold us out. It frustrates me when smart people don't see the truth about him. I can admit I was duped and I want others to let go of obama-hope so we can move forward. I voted for Obama and I was displeased when he let Dick, George and Donald gang off the hook for their war crimes, and when he appointed 17 lobbyists in his first 14 days, but it got personal when I heard my president endangering people by telling them the Gulf was safe when I knew for certain it was not. What kind of person does that? It's more than looking the other way... it is blatant disregard for life of your own people.

Bensdad, I strongly object to the unconstitutional provisions in NDAA 0212 and I can not understand why any American would not. Indefinite detention by military with no charge, no attorney, no trial, no day in court, no Habeus Corpus and the end of Posse Comitatus Act is quite serious. NDAA 2012 violates our Bill of Rights, US law and International law. Do you realize what the danger of those few words? They had the chance to eliminate US citizens from indefinite detention (as in AUMF) and they solidified it. Patently wrong! Obama, or any future president, can make a claim and kill or imprison anyone... doesn't that sound like a dictator? Speaking of few words with serious implications... have you read the bill of few words called the 'Enemy Expatriation Act'? It's just two sentences really, but it is incredibly dangerous because of the few words left out "if and when he is convicted". It is still in committee and I hope they fix it or tear it up!
You can read it here, 'Citizens vs Civilians - Americans Without a Country' - http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2012/02/citizens-vs-civilians-americans-without.html

I don't like the fact NDAA 2012 included another $662,000,000,000.00 to finance the military so the warmongers can pocket more of OUR tax-dollars but they always stick BS like this in bills that fund military but it's no excuse. I support the people in our military (I have family serving) but I can not support the leaders that put lives at risk for NO legitimate reason (oil and gold are no reason). War crimes in Libya are horrific but that's what happens when hired mercenaries are given guns and air support. It was a CIA led coup and it is Obama's war, his crimes. Obama is a lot smarter than Dubbya but he's continued every bad Bush policy and there is no difference when it comes to violating Human and Constitutional Rights; one lied to go to war with Iraq and one is lying about that war being over. Iraq war is not over, it is just PRIVATIZED. There was Libya and now it's the same old drumbeat about Iran and I tell ya, it will lead to WWIII... (that's also why gas is going up).
Privatized war- https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/privatizing_the_war_on_terror_americas_military_contractors

Detention of citizens by the military is not for the 'lone wolf'. It is for quelling growing dissent and groups like OWS, and that includes you. Do you know Obama actually wanted to extend the Patriot Act years longer than Congress was even considering last time they extended it? Another broken promise but he is extending tyranny beyond that. The CIA has killed US citizens before, covertly of course, but now an American president is OPENLY ordering assassinations of US citizens with NO charge, trial, court, and bragging about it. Where is the outrage? I am not defending anyone that is a traitor or terrorist, I detest war and violence, but I value the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. IF someone has committed a crime, gov should charge them and let Justice be served according to our Rule of Law. It seems to me that not bothering to have a trial probably means they don't have evidence. Transparency? ACLU is suing Obama admin to get info on kill orders Obama bragged about. These lawmakers [most of Congress, Bush, Cheney, Obama] do whatever they want with no regard for US law or OUR Bill of Rights! Obama is not a king or a dictator but he is acting like one... and the fact Obama makes jokes with "predator drone" as the punchline is downright scary!!! They took an oath to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution and they are shredding it. Perhaps my 'fanatic' rant is understandable by those who value Liberty as much as I do. I certainly wish more People would consider the implications. No nation has ever made such laws without eventually turning on their own citizens (Hitler, Mussolini). And don't think it can't happen here. Remember what US did to Japanese US citizens. Here is a little known FACT: the Army is hiring "Internment/Resettlement Specialists". Why do you think?
US Army - Careers & Jobs; Internment / Resettlement Specialist http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html And OWS was labeled a terror threat by law enforcement, equivalent to al-CIA-duh (read NDAA 2012 regarding those named threat by coalition forces... OWS indeed).

Those unconstitutional provisions of NDAA 2012 go into effect THIS WEEK. Maybe they'll finally get some use of those FEMA camps all across the US. There are 700+ Fusion Centers across the US and they serve one function: collecting data on US citizens. All it takes is for one to snap a picture of a bridge or a tourist attraction and viola, fusion center database. Who is the potential threat? And most people are oblivious.
Sources here- http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/05/enduring-police-state-of-america-and.html and here- http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/11/give-me-liberty.html --- to be continued---

[-] 0 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 6 years ago

Bensdad, I wrote, "Obama essentially said 'LET THEM EAT POISON"" If someone as trusted as the leader of a nation tells you it is safe to eat something that they know has been doused with poison for months... they are essentially telling you to eat poison.

If I knew it was poison, so should he since he was giving his personal assurance. MSDS is online. The *source was in the first comment but I'll post it again at the bottom. However, please read this first as I would like to elaborate as this is complex. It is a serious claim and I do not make it lightly.

People are sick without getting in the water or eating the seafood because they (BP, Coast Guard and Air Force) spray the dispersant from planes and it travels through the air. Tests show oil & corexit are in the rain so it also affects life inland. Trees/plants are also dead and dying and Corexit has been detected in inland swimming pools. However, the exposure is much greater when eating the food or swimming in the water therefore, the risk is much greater. GOV should have evacuated the coast at minimum, yet, Obama said, "Beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, they are safe, and they are open for business,"... Dangerous LIE. Obama Administration still encourages people to eat Gulf seafood with their press releases stating they will be serving Gulf seafood at a White House dinner. I doubt it is from the Gulf, but perhaps it was caught before the gusher.

Corexit is the dispersant BP and gov spray. Bad + bad = worse, but tests sow Corexit makes the oil three times more toxic. There are safer and more effective alternatives but those rot on the dock. Corexit has one "Environmental Precaution: Do not contaminate surface water." Obviously that was ignored. The main ingredient [up to 60%] of Corexit 9527A is 2-butoxyethanol and it destroys RBCs, among other horrid things like cancer, birth defects, adverse effects on reproduction. A lot of women have had miscarriages, as many as 30 in one small town in LA. Coincidence? This probably explains the "unusual mortality event" of dead and still born dolphins, but we still don't know because Obama still has a gag order on those autopsy results. Our government classifies 2-butoxyethanol as "POISONOUS MATERIAL" (per MSDS).

Here's a sad but true personal story that may help you relate. Lisa was one American who believed her president when he said the Gulf was safe and she went to an Alabama beach in the Fall of 2010. Lisa did not even get in the water but the next day she was swollen head to toe; she was covered in bruises and she could hardly breathe. Doctors were dumbfounded but I knew immediately the bruises were probably caused by the Corexit as my 2 year old had them too (not as bad as her. Thank God!). Lisa was young, healthy and beautiful before she went to the beach that night and she died early last year. She was poisoned and she died. Who is responsible for her death? Doesn't Obama have some responsibility? There are too many stories like that. Blood tests of children are showing the highest levels of toxins and in some cases, their levels are higher than fishermen (depends on location). I will worry about my children for the rest of my life.

Obama said the Gulf of Mexico was safe as poisonous dispersant was still being sprayed on the Gulf [and millions of us along the coast]. Even if he didn't know that his Coast Guard and Air Force were still spraying Corexit, he did know they had been spraying it for months because it was on the news! It was obvious when millions of dead fish and mammals were still washing ashore... they had workers sweeping the public beaches, but the locals know so the truth is not completely buried. Not as many, but dead fish and dolphins are still washing ashore. The dead zone is growing and I know it's worse than they say because I know results... the lab just said "no cells found" about a water sample from FL. That water was dead! The shrimp was so high in Corexit that no other elements could be detected. THEY STILL SPRAY THAT CRAP!

Oil never stopped leaking because the reservoir collapsed; Many experts and even Coast Guard's Thad Allen (Incident Commander) said it may have collapsed. They can plug the well but there is no stopping a collapsed reservoir beneath the seafloor. That is "Worst Case Scenario". Gas sits on top of the oil inside the reservoir so first the gas will seep out along the path of least resistance (see videos of mudline seepage) and then the oil will follow. It seems the gas is gone which is why we started seeing a lot of oil a few months ago. The fresh oil is a 'dead ringer match' for MC252 and MS 252 was the 10th largest reservoir in the Gulf. They couldn't hide it forever, even with Corexit and now it's showing up a lot... and BP is pushing for a settlement. BP's trial was supposed to start yesterday but was delayed for "settlement talks". AARGH! My first post reflects my frustration. I apologize for the zombie comment. I didn't mean to take it out on you. A settlement means we will not get the disclosure we need and deserve. It is insane to entertain a settlement when oil is still leaking (that determines the fine $$) and scientists say we won't know the extent of the damage for a decade. I'm sure GOV doesn't want a trial because the cover-up would be exposed.

People that live on the Gulf still see the oil and death washing ashore and the planes spraying the [poisonous] dispersant. It's a neverending nightmare for us and Gov says it's a "trade off".. OUR LIVES for OIL... some trade! Everyone I love is in the poison zone so I am passionate about this issue. Two of my best friends worked for Environmental groups; they collected samples for testing and they were bleeding from every orifice... that's due to Corexit, NOT oil. One friend was terribly ill and bleeding, moved away. No surprise the bleeding stopped a few weeks after moving away but they're still sick. I have seen the people covered with blistering sores first hand, my young son has had them too, along with the bruises that still have not faded.

Bensdad, You seem like a good person but I want the world to know about this danger. How would you feel if Ben was covered in blistering sores and had bruises that would never fade away... and you knew the reason but the head honcho was telling everyone it's OK... and that doctors don't know how to treat and/or are too scared to say a word? Prominent Gulf Truthers like Dr. Manton have been murdered, or in the case of Matt Simmons, drowned in his hot tub (a grown man?!?!) sources: http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/01/gov-inc-chemical-experiments-and-you.html

Heck, the insults just keep coming. Obama never declared the worst environmental disaster in the US as "a disaster" so BP gets to write off the poisonous [fake] clean-up. So we pay for our own poisoning. I haven't even mentioned his appointment to handle claims for victims, Kenneth Feinberg, who is paid by BP ($80,000./each and every month). He works for BP so do ya think claims are denied fairly? Obama should never have appointed Feinberg; his usual clients include Exxon, Shell, DuPont, Dow, Raytheon... victims never stood a chance. I know lifelong Gulf fishermen that haven't seen a penny since the gusher. I don't know how many clean-up and VOO workers have died, and they have died, but I know a lot of sick ones.

There has been a massive cover up on this ONGOING disaster, and it started from Day 1. GOV and BP participated in Project Deep Spill in 2000 (see my post 'Helland Hansen'). That study showed deep water oil spills create underwater plumes of oil... which you may recall BP denied when they were discovered and Gov was silent. Scientists spent precious time and money proving they did in fact exist...scientists were told it's a matter of national security when NOAA and CG confiscated their notebooks/samples. Project DeepSpill also showed that oil from deepwater spills goes through a stripping process and the oil in those underwater plumes are "the most toxic compounds of oil". Add Corexit.

Fact is, oil is STILL leaking and our government still protects BP. Allowing them to drill in the Gulf again with no safety improvements. These claims are supported in the videos and many links throughout this post or links within. There are a lot of info as I update often so take your time if you want the truth. I am just trying to protect my kids, your Ben and all people, especially children.
'The Gulf of Mexico is NOT Safe, IT IS DYING!' http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/02/gulf-of-mexico-is-not-safe-it-is-dying.html'Obama offers personal assurance Gulf of Mexico is safe': "Beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, they are safe, and they are open for business," said Obama. http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/obama_offers_personal_assuranc.html note-- there was a White House photo released that supposedly showed Barack and one of his girls swimming in the Gulf.. but location is suspect. No media allowed, just WH handout. Rumor was that Michelle freaked and would not allow her daughter to swim in Gulf water... I can't blame her.

The Gulf of Mexico is STILL not safe and people need to think about why their leader tells them it is when he should have evacuated the area.
Have an open mind and consider each of these things collectively because they do connect. Sorry for the long reply, but it is complex.. and I that's just the tip of the iceberg. Peace!

[-] 0 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 6 years ago

The truth is extreme but anything less is a lie, and in the case of poisoned food from poisoned waters, a dangerous lie. Is it genocide?

Here are the first four Articles from Resolution 260 (III) A, ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’ adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948:

Article 1 The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3 The following acts shall be punishable:

* (a) Genocide;
* (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
* (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
* (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
* (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

[-] -1 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 6 years ago

Obama's preventative prolonged detention speech back in 2009. It really is quite telling. The whole thing is absurd but this part really gets me, Obama Says -

"In our Constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.  If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.  So going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution"--   

First of all, prolonged detention could never fit in to OUR Constitutional system, especially preventative. Any kind of "legal regime" that is "appropriate" for prolonged detention is more appropriate for a totalitarian regime. It seems clear to me that indefinite detention is something Obama has long wanted and citizen imprisonment in NDAA is the latest effort to make it part of his 'legal regime'... albeit UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! America is a battlefield and its * citizens can be detained by military upon the order of this one man, the man who said in 2009, "it should not be the decision of any one man"... yet it is... because Congress just gave it to him for his UNCONSTITUTIONAL "legal regime"... and now that it is up to that one man to call for the indefinite detention of anyone... anywhere... Will he use it to prevent a crime that has not yet occurred? That could be just about anything within the vague terms used in NDAA. Maybe Big Brother has thought police or they'll just name anyone that disagrees with government actions/policy... which would include most everyone. Men like George Bush and Barack Obama do whatever they want, just as Hitler's Germany "legal regime" did before they killed the Jews. So with the rising dissent of the American People who are fed up with corruption and government run by corporations, it makes perfect sense that Obama requested Citizen Imprisonment. Don't think that's the worst of it, because he wants prolonged preventative detention... can you say FEMA camps?!

VIDEO PROOF- Obama Announces Detaining Americans for Future Crimes that Have Not Been Committed- VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SfHAPMuDWrA

MORE ON NDAA 2012, and MILITARY INDEFINITE DETENTION FOR ALL Your Allotted Amount of Freedom Has Expired!- http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/your-allotted-amount-of-freedom-has.html

OBAMA'S "Kill Orders!" http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2012/02/damn-it-people-dont-you-get-it-part-12.html

NO Obamney 2012 for globalists

[+] -6 points by newman (-58) 6 years ago

Obummer, the worst President (POS) ever

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

LABELS -the first sign of dementia

[+] -6 points by newman (-58) 6 years ago

To you libtards, someone that does not like buckwheat is either prejudice or not normal. I am one of the 67% of Americans that do not like him

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Not true. If you don't like the current President, that's fine. However, you are going to have to bring something more to the table than your emails.

[-] -3 points by newman (-58) 6 years ago

This is a "forum" and not email!!!! Duh!!!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Yes, but when you rely on your little emails as proof then you have a problem.

[-] -2 points by newman (-58) 6 years ago

Shouldn't the 99% be called the 50% instead (the 50% that do not pay taxes) America will never be called the 99% since you folks are always chopping up the Rep, etc

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Meow Meow Meow Meow. :/

[-] -1 points by newman (-58) 6 years ago

Libtards, the disease of America

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

newmans same as the oldmans.